08/15/05
The Lord Mackay case in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (FPCS) precipitated the departure from the FPCS of a large segment of the church, and the formation of the Associated Presbyterian Church (APC). A we read at http://www.apchurches.org.uk/reviews/change_in_reaction_to_continuity.htm : "It was the first of those "distinctives" which received the most attention in 1989 particularly because the disciplining of Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the then Lord Chancellor, attracted so much media interest. He was suspended from the eldership of the Free Presbyterian Church for attending, but not participating in, the funeral service of a Roman Catholic colleague. The censure of Lord Mackay was, however, only one of many issues…"
It is the contention of the APC that their own position on issues related to Romish toleration reflect the position of the Church of Scotland during the Reformation (see http://www.apchurches.org.uk/reviews/change_in_reaction_to_continuity.htm ) :
“The Free Presbyterian ministers and elders who signed a deed of separation in May 1989 did so because they believed that the synod of the Free Presbyterian Church had changed in reaction to continuity. Indeed, the newly formed Associated Presbyterian Churches claimed that their separate existence was necessary in order to preserve the constitution of the Free Presbyterian Church…
It was the first of those "distinctives" which received the most attention in 1989 particularly because the disciplining of Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the then Lord Chancellor, attracted so much media interest. He was suspended from the eldership of the Free Presbyterian Church for attending, but not participating in, the funeral service of a Roman Catholic colleague. The censure of Lord Mackay was, however, only one of many issues. The Reverend Alexander Murray was suspended in 1988 for asking, in his capacity of Chair of a Working Party of the Education Committee of Highland Regional Council (and which was meeting in private), the Roman Catholic priest to take his turn to open one of these meetings in prayer. Others faced charges over issues such as the use of, or retailing of, the New International Version of the Bible.
The ministers and elders who signed the deed of separation in 1989 argued that to censure people for such things was to deny the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith on liberty of conscience and so to undermine the constitution of the church. Such matters were of private judgment. In those situations the church had no authority to exercise lordship. Furthermore, it was argued that the attitude of the majority in the Free Presbyterian synod to Roman Catholicism was not that of the Reformers, the Reformed Church, or leading Free Presbyterian ministers of the past.4 The Free Presbyterian Church had reacted to continuity by changing… In the view of those who separated from her in 1989, the Free Presbyterian Church had abandoned the biblical and confessional teaching on liberty of conscience….”
So in the view of the APC it was not the historic position of the Church of Scotland to forbid attendance at the Romish Mass and to censure those who trespassed.
But this is a very obvious error on the part of the APC, for it was the historic position of the Church of Scotland to condemn attendance at the Romish Mass, and to follow up transgression with discipline. For instance:
"do condemn all baptism conform to the Pope's kirk, and the idolatry of the mass; and ordains all sayers, willful hearers, and concealers of the mass, the maintainers and resetters of the priests, Jesuits, trafficking Papists, to be punished without any exception or restriction, Act 5, Parl. 1; Act 120, Parl. 12; Act 164, Parl. 13; Act 193, Parl. 14; Act 1, Parl. 19; Act 5, Parl. 20, King James VI."
The case against attendance at
the idolatrous Mass is actually prima facie:
1. We are commanded to flee from idolatry (1 Corinthians
10:14).
2. Attendance at an idolatrous service cannot reasonably be
construed as fleeing from idolatry.
3. The Romish Mass is an idolatrous service.
4. Hence, we ought not to attend the Romish Mass, even if we
partake not.
Not only is one’s presence at
such an idolatrous service an offense to God, it is also a stumbling block to
other brethren. If they should see you
going into an idolatrous service, they too may be emboldened to proceed. How different that is from the admonition of
the Apostle, who exhorted us not to engage in activity which could be such an
offense, especially for those coming out of idolatry, and very tempted to
return to it.
Some may object that a
prohibition against attendance at Mass is equivalent to a monkish seclusion,
given the wickedness of the world.
But such an objection fails to see the clear line between living in the
world versus actually attending an idolatrous worship service. The Bible clearly testifies that we are not
to sequester ourselves from the world.
For instance, we may engage in commerce with Christian and pagan
alike. As the Apostle Paul even wrote,
“I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not
altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or
extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the
world.” (I Corinthians 5:9-10) We are
not commanded to go out of the world.
Yet, we are commanded to flee idolatry, which can reasonably be
construed to mean remaining physically separated from idolatrous services. Just as it would be inappropriate to attend
a pagan service worshipping idols, so it would be wrong to attend the
idolatrous Romish Mass.
It should be asked of those
like Lord Mackay who insist upon the Christian right to attend the Romish Mass,
whether they also find it a right to attend a pagan service worshipping
idols. In addition, such professed
Presbyterians should be asked whether they admit that their separation from the
FPCS because of its prohibition amounts to a separation as well from the
historic Church of Scotland of the Reformation. Because as we showed above, the historic Church of Scotland of
the Reformation clearly forbade attendance at the Mass.
The APC and its members should
repent of the sin of erroneous toleration of Romish idolatry, incorrect
characterization of the historical record, and ecclesiastical schism. We should flee from idolatry (1 Cor. 10:14), not
tolerate it with our presence at the Romish Mass.
ADDENDUM: Matthew Vogan posted this helpful
information on the topic at http://www.holdfast.co.nr/
:
In 1989 there was great media
furore about the disciplining of Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the then Lord
Chancellor, and elder of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland for attending
the requiem mass funeral service of a Roman Catholic colleague.
The Lord Mackay case showed alarmingly how far removed even so-called Reformed
Christians may be from the Reformation itself. The Reformers would have
recognised Lord Mackay's dissimulation at the requiem mass as Nicodemism. The
term "Nicodemites" was applied to those who had claimed to be
Protestants but hid their convictions by still attending the Mass and Roman
Catholic ceremonies. Afraid of persecution, these Protestants kept their faith
secret and pretended in everything outwardly to be Roman Catholics. The
Reformers refuted the Nicodemites, showing that they could not be undefiled by
continuing to attend the blasphemous and idolatrous Mass. Farel, Bullinger,
Bucer, Viret and Peter Martyr Vermigli, all wrote against Mass attendance and
argued that merely to share the same space with a Roman Catholic idol or to be
an observer at Mass was to allow oneself to be polluted. Calvinists were forbidden
from attending Roman Catholic marriages, baptisms and funerals. Italian
Reformers such as Francesco Negri and Caelio Secondo Curione and Pier Paolo
Vergerio all wrote on the subject. The Reformers fled into exile rather than be
forced into conformity with popery. In the Second Reformation, the Covenanter
James Wood maintained: "The Mass is even upon the matter one of the
grossest idolatries that ever was in the world. And for a man to go to Mass,
when he pretends to protest to go against it, is to add, to commission of
idolatry, mocking of God and sinning against light professedly." Samuel
Rutherford interpreted Paul's prohibition against attending idol feasts as
forbidding Mass attendance: "Paul forbids communicating with unbelievers
at idol feasts,as the place will command us to separate from the Mass
Service" (The Due Right of Presbytery, 1644)
Calvin's response to Nicodemism
The Nicodemites argued that bodily worship in terms of presence and posture
could be distinguished from spiritual. Although they bowed down before idols,
their hearts were not involved or engaged. Calvin argued that corporal worship
could not be separated from spiritual attitudes. God is the Lord of the body no
less than of the soul of the elect. The believer must honour God outwardly and
publicly whether in life or public worship, and this included refusing to
conform to the idolatries of popery. God requires more than secret worship and
allegiance. If we are ashamed of Christ or His Word, He will be ashamed of us
when He comes in judgement. We must glorify God in our bodies as well as
spirits which are not our own but Christ's. We are to abstain from all idolatry
and (as Calvin put it) remain "pure and immaculate before God, in soul as
well as in body." Anything less is hypocrisy.
Perez Zagorin comments that Calvin "rejected the distinction between inner
intention and outward conformity, insisting that God must be worshipped purely
in body as well as in spirit because both were God's and the body must not be
polluted by worshiping idols" (Ways of Lying, pp. 72-73). For Calvin,
compromise with Baal was impossible. The Nicodemites were re guilty of
unfaithfulness to God, they "either pretend to deny him, or openly shew
that they consent to errors" (Commentary on Jer. 10:11). Daniel's three
friends could have claimed their hearts were not engaged in idolatry of bowing
down to the image and so escaped the fiery furnace. Calvin says: "If a man
secretly mocks the idol, while pretending to honour it, he is still guilty of
having transferred the honour of God to the creature" (Come out from Among
Them, p.56).
"The mockery which worships God with nought but external gestures and
absurd human fictions, how could we, without sin, allow to pass unrebuked? We
know how much he hates hypocrisy, and yet in that fictitious worship, which was
everywhere in use, hypocrisy reigned. We hear how bitter the terms in which the
prophets inveigh against all worship fabricated by human rashness."
For Calvin the struggle over worship was at the centre of the Reformation:
"For it is not true that we dispute about a worthless shadow. The whole
substance of the Christian religion is brought into question." All
Christians must struggle for the maintenance of pure worship: "There is
nothing to which all men should pay more attention, nothing in which God wishes
us to exhibit a more intense eagerness than in endeavoring that the glory of
his name may remain undiminished, his kingdom be advanced, and the pure
doctrine, which alone can guide us to true worship, flourish in full
strength." "If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the
Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its
truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal
place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the
whole substance of Christianity: that is, a knowledge, first, of the mode in
which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation
is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the
name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain".
Attendance at the Mass shows the link between doctrine and worship because it
is a silent acquiescence in blasphemy that denies and subverts the very gospel
itself. As Calvin says: "True piety begets true confession." Religion
is not merely an intellectual commitment to a collection of doctrines, but a
way of worshiping and living to the glory of God. Because the proper end of
human existence is knowledge of God and of ourselves, worship is the reason for
human existence, the fundamental principle that alone can bring true
fulfillment.
John Knox against the idolatry of the Mass
John Knox also wrote several public epistles condemning Mass attendance. He
called the mass "the devil's sacrament" and regarded it as
"abominable idolatry". He said "One mass is more fearful to me
than if ten thousand enemies were landed in any part of the realm of purpose to
suppress the whole religion. For in our God there is strength to resist and confound
multitudes if we unfeignedly depend upon him; whereof heretofore we have had
experience; but when we join hand with idolatry, it is no doubt but that both
God's amicable presence and comfortable defence leaves us, and what shall then
become of us? Alas, I fear that experience shall teach us, to the grief of
many".
Knox was unequivocal: "The Mass is Idolatry. The Mass is invented by the
brain of man, without any commandment of God; therefore it is idolatry"
"All the glistering ceremonies of the Papists are very dung, and
abomination before God."
"All honouring or service of God whereunto is added a wicked opinion is
abomination. Unto the Mass is added a wicked opinion. Therefore it is
abomination."
"...to the great blasphemy of Christ's death, and open denial of his
passion, it has been affirmed, taught, and believed, that the Mass was a
sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead: which opinion is most false,
vain, and wicked. And so, I think, the Mass to be abominable and idolatry no
man of indifferent judgment will deny."
"For so odious and abominable I know the Mass to be in God's presence,
that unless you decline from the same, to life can you never attain. And
therefore, brethren, flee from that idolatry, rather than from the present
death." (A Vindication of the Doctrine that the Sacrifice of the Mass is
Idolatry, 1550).
John Bradford and 'The Hurt of Hearing Mass'
The English Reformer and Martyr John Bradford wrote a book on the
"Hurt of Hearing Mass" and like all the martyrs sealed his testimony
against the blasphemous mass with his own blood. Bradford maintained that the
"mass is a most subtle and pernicious enemy against Christ, and that
double, namely, against his priesthood and against his sacrifice...Christ's
sacrifice once made by himself on the tree, on the mount of Calvary, is the
full and perfect propitiatory sacrifice to the sanctification of all them that
are and shall be saved, never more to be reiterated and done again, for that
signifieth an imperfection." Bradford argues against attending mass from
the second commandment: "this precept forbiddeth all kind of outward
idolatry, as the first doth all kind of inward idolatry, to this end that God's
true worship inwardly and outwardly be observed. But now the mass is an outward
idol, and the service of God there used is idolatry. Therefore they which are
present at the mass, honoring it with their corporal presence (as they do which
being there do not in open and exterior fact publicly disallow the same), they,
I say are open and manifest idolaters, and incur the danger of idolatry, that
is God's heavy wrath and eternal damnation: which thing I trow be no trifle,
but to fools which make sin a thing of nothing." (Hurt Of Hearing Mass in
The Writings of John Bradford, Vol. 2, p312).
In his Letters Bradford writes vehemently against the Mass and attending it. Of
the Mass he writes that "of all idols that ever was, the most abominable
and blasphemous to Christ and his priesthood, manhood, and sacrifice; for it
makes the priest that says mass, God's fellow, and better than Christ; for the
offerer is always better or equivalents to the thing offered. (Heb. 5) If,
therefore, the priest takes upon him there to offer up Christ, as they boldly
affirm they do, then he must needs be better or equal with Christ."
"Let us reprove the works of darkness. Let us flee from all idolatry. Let
us abhor the antichristian and Romish rotten service, detest the popish mass,
renounce their Romish god, prepare ourselves to the cross..." "If God
be God, follow Him. If the mass be god, let them that will, see it, hear or be
present at it, and go to the devil with it...There is a sacrifice, yea, a
killing of Christ again as much as they may. There is idolatry in worshipping
the outward sign of bread and wine."
Bradford sees the fear of man as at the root of attending the mass. He counsels
those who are tempted to this to look at the rewards of obedience and the fear
of God rather than the fear of man: "look on the joys incomprehensible,
which God has prepared for all those, world without end, who lose either lands
or goods for his name's sake. And then reason thus: If we go to mass, which is
the greatest enemy that Christ has, though for a little time we shall live in
quiet and leave to our children what they may live by hereafter, yet we shall
displease God, fall into his hands, which is horrible to hypocrites, and be in
hazard of fading from eternal joy into eternal misery, first of soul, and then
of body, with the devil and all idolaters."
Bradford does not mince words about those who bowed to the fear of man and
self-love by attending mass. "The more part divide stakes with the papists
and protestants, so that they are become mangy mongrels, and infect all that
company with them, to their no small peril. For they pretend outwardly popery,
going to mass with the papists, and tarrying with them personally at their
antichristian and idolatrous service, but with their hearts, say they, and with
their spirits they serve the Lord". Like Calvin, Bradford will not have
any of this distinction between the body and the spirit in worship: "alas!
shall not he have the service of the body, but it must be given to serve the
new found god of antichrist's invention? Did not Christ buy both our souls and
bodies? And wherewith? With any less price than with his precious blood? Ah!
wretches then that we are, if we defile either part with the rose coloured
harlot of Babylon's filthy mass abomination! It had been better for us never to
have been washed, than so to wallow ourselves in the filthy puddle of popery.
It had been better never to have known the truth, than thus to betray it. (Rev
18; 2 Pet. 2; Heb. 6 and 10; Matt. 12; Luke 11) Surely, surely, let such men
fear lest their latter end be worse than the beginning. Their own conscience
now accuses them before God if they have any conscience, that they are but
dissemblers and hypocrites to God and man. For all the cloaks they make, they
cannot deny that their going to church and to mass is of self-love; that is,
they go thither because they would avoid the cross; they go thither because
they would be out of trouble. They seek neither the queen's highness nor her
laws, which in this point cannot bind the conscience to obey, because they are
contrary to God's laws, which bid us often to flee idolatry and worshipping him
after men's devices. They seek neither (I say) the laws, if there were any, nor
their brethren advantage, for none comes thereby, neither godliness nor good
example, for there can be none found in going to mass, etc. but horrible
offences, and "woe to them that give them" but they seek their own
selves, their own ease, their escaping the cross, etc."
Attending Mass is being ashamed of Christ, according to Bradford:
"For he that is ashamed of me, says Christ, and of my gospel, in this
faithless generation, I will be ashamed of him before the angels of God in
heaven. Oh! how heavy a sentence is this to all such as know the mass to be an
abominable idol, full of idolatry, blasphemy, and sacrilege, against God and
his Christ, as undoubtedly it is, and yet for fear of men, for loss of life or
goods, yea, some for advantage or gain, will honest (make it appear, editor) it
with their presence, dissembling both with God and man, as their own heart and
conscience accuses them! Better it were that such had never known the truth,
than thus wittingly, and for fear or favour of man, whose breath is in his
nostrils, dissemble it, or rather, as indeed it is, deny it. The end of such is
like to be worse than their beginning. Such had need to take heed to the two
terrible places to the Hebrews, in the 6th and 10th chapters, lest by so doing
they fall therein. Let them beware they play not willy-beguile (do not deceive
themselves, editor) with themselves, as some do, I fear me, which go to mass,
and because they worship not, nor kneel, nor knock, as others do, but sit still
in their pews, therefore they think they rather do good to others than hurt.
But, alas! if these men would look into their own consciences, there should
they see they are very dissemblers, and in seeking to deceive others, for by
this means the magistrates think them of their sort, they deceive themselves.
They think at the elevation-time, all men's eyes are set upon them to mark how
they do. They think others, hearing of such men going to mass, do see or
inquire of their behaviour there. Oh! if there were in those men that are so
present at the mass, either love to God or to their brethren, then would they,
for the one or both, openly take God's part, and admonish the people of their
idolatry. They fear man more than Him which has power to cast both soul and
body into hell fire: they halt on both knees: they serve two masters. God have
mercy upon such, and open their eyes with his eye-salve, that they may see that
they which take no part with God are against God: and that they which gather
not with Christ, do scatter abroad. Oh! that they would read what St. John says
will be done to the fearful! The counsel given to the church at Laodicaea is
good counsel for such (Rev. 3:21)."
Lastly, there is a serious danger in attending the mass: "The devil would
gladly have you now overthrow that godliness which you have long professed. Oh!
how would he triumph, if he could win his purpose! Oh! how would the papists
triumph against God's gospel in you! Oh! how would you confirm them in their
wicked popery! Oh! how would the poor children of God be discomforted, if you
should now go to mass, and other idolatrous service, and do as the world
does!"
The development of Nicodemism
The development of Nicodemism proved its dangers. It began to wear an open,
ecumenical face. Caspar Schwenckfeld was one of the most notable Nicodemists,
he was a noble who visited the courts of Catholic princes and conversed freely
with them and appeared to conform religiously. (cf. George Hunston Williams,
The Radical Reformation, Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992,
pp.904-12). Nicodemism also developed into a radically spiritualist movement in
countries such as Holland where David Joris and Hendrick Niclaes promoted the
heterodoxy of the Family of Love. This aimed at an exclusively Quaker-type
personal inward religion for which all ceremonies and outward forms of worship
were a matter of indifference. Attending Mass out of deference to man shows an
indifference to the blasphemy and idolatry that it represents, this
indifference to true doctrine and worship and to the glory of Christ can only
have seriously damaging consequences when it is either tolerated or encouraged
in the Church.
Further Reading
What a Faithful Man . . . Ought to Do Dwelling Amongst the Papists (1543);
Excuse to the Nicodemites (1544); The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543)
Come Out From Among Them: Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John Calvin, Protestant
Heritage Press, 2001.
John Bradford, The Hurt of Hearing Mass, Focus Publications.
The War Against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship From Erasmus to Calvin,
Carlos M. N. Eire, Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Ways of Lying: Dissimulation, Persecution, and Conformity in Early Modern Europe,
Perez Zagorin, Harvard University Press, 1990.