THE "SPECTRE"

by RAY HIATT

Hollywood, Florida

PART I

"But ye have not so learned Christ (Eph. 4:20).

I have been fascinated by the doctrine of "The Priesthood Of The Church" for years even though I know that it was a dogma that was tinctured with an uncommon amount of imagination and invention. I had never studied the subject in any great depth until recently when I received a copy of a book on the subject from a venerable minister of Christ. Upon receipt of the book I said that I would study it carefully and then scribble out my impressions. This then is the scribbling and what follows are my impressions. My impressions not only of the book but of the entirety of the doctrine as well.

I have studied this book and doctrine willing to be convinced. I have studied it without pre-conditions and without prejudice. If there was evidence I sought it. If there was truth I quested for it. If there were blessings I eagerly desired them.

The author of the book and the men that I personally know who believe in "The Priesthood Of The Church" are gifted men and of superior quality. Nothing in this overview is meant to impugn either their motives or their integrity as devoted servants of The Most High God.

But, alas, different men frequently see the same subject in different lights. A clinical psychologist once said that in scientific investigation a scholar's "Intention regulates his Attention." The promoters of the "Priesthood" have as their Intention to prove that Christ's church is a priest so therefore, it is understandable that their Attention is given to shadows, suppositions and assumptions.

I really owe a debt of gratitude to the author for setting forth in concise form the belief of the "Priesthood Of The Church." Before reading the book I had only a scattered knowledge of the subject that was gleaned from pulpit sermons and private conversations alone. I am thankful to have the doctrine in printed form so that it can be dealt with in a concise and orderly fashion.

Indeed I have recently submitted an article to The Baptist Examiner entitled "Too Far" which dealt with the subject of the "Priesthood" based on sermons and conversations alone.

"Evidence" is a legal term and definable by those that use it. There is hard evidence and circumstantial evidence and most people know the difference. Many things in the Bible are set forth in concrete, clearly discernable form while we can only get impressions of others. On a doctrine of such importance as the "Priesthood" proports to be, we must demand HARD EVIDENCE. It is just this HARD EVIDENCE that is lacking in the presentation of this doctrine.

The followers of the "Priesthood" say that Christ's church is a priest, pretty much on the order of the Levitical priesthood. They weave a train of thought from Adam until now concerning the transference of power, authority and command through a "birthright," and "anointing" and a "laying on of hands," etc.

They establish the church as a sort of mini-neo-Israel that functions upon the same principles as Israel did. I have little quarrel with much of what they say about Israel, the Old Testament and God's method of operation there. However, they cannot seem to grasp the essential fact that when you come to the church you have left old things behind and are dealing with a NEW body, a NEW concept, with NEW responsibilities, NEW requirements, to be met by a NEW people (Gentiles), in a NEW area (all the world), in NEW climes, under NEW circumstances, with NEW strength (the indwelling of each believer), and all testified to by a NEW TESTAMENT.

I am not in conflict with the Old Testament or Israel. They are ordained of God and the Old Testament is His Word fully as much as Galatians is. However, God does deal differently in different points of time. This does not make Him mutable but merely illustrates the progressive outworking of His eternal will and purpose.

Each Bible book has its own particular theme and each Testament has its own theme and methods.

The "Priesthood" takes old things (which were perfectly valid in the setting in which God placed them) and meshes them with the new and so forms a ponderous, unworkable tenet.

The law is as a "shadow" (Heb. 10:1) and as a shadow it was never designed to minister salvation or sanctification unto Israel. Am I then to believe that the law which was unable to minister sanctification in the Old is now a working principle which shall minister to my sanctification in the New? The priesthood was established by law. Are we under law or are we under grace? Romans 6:14 and Galatians 3:10 gives the answer. If we are not under the Old Testament law how then can we be under the Old Testament priesthood? This is a proposition that the "Priesthood" believers never adequately explain.

In fact this book and the doctrine that it sets forth reminds me of Elbert Hubbard's description of Metaphysics, "Metaphysics is an attempt to explain a thing and thereby evade the trouble of understanding it. You throw the burden of proof on the other fellow and make him believe he does not understand because he is too stupid."

For brevity's sake, I will henceforth refer to the book on the priesthood and the propagators of the doctrine under the joint title, "The Brethren." I mean to imply no insult but I must compress this overview or it will outrun the book and the doctrine it intends to examine. Please understand that not every believer in "The Priesthood Of The Church" believes every tenet or assumption that I shall list. However, the book does set them forth and they are held in general among "The Brethren" with local variations and differing intensities.

My main and essential quarrel with the brethren is that they take Old Testament instances and particulars and attempt to impose them on the New Testament church. They are not the first to do this but I thought that the trend had gone out of style. The root cause of the American Revolution, as stated in the Declaration, was that we were being ruled from afar by archaic methods. They insist on ruling the church from afar by the law and the priesthood which were never ordained to function in the Church of Jesus Christ. We do not need an effigy of the Old Testament priesthood. We have a priesthood ordained by Jesus and effectual to the needs of born again believers as they minister in the world at large (either in the church or out).

Let me state early on that I believe very definitely in a "Priesthood Of The Church" as I shall now define it. Everyone that God adds to one of His churches is a priest and therefore you could possibly say that corporately, together, they form a corporate priesthood as they are united together in the body of Christ. However, God's New Testament priesthood extends beyond the bounds of the Church into the life of every born again, royal son of God whom God has anointed. You see the New Testament priesthood embraces the FAMILY not just the CHURCH. Here is where the brethren err, . . . they limit God in a most grievous way and in limiting Him they dishonor Him.

The brethren cannot seem to comprehend that there is some difference between being a spiritual seed of Abraham and being a physical seed. They cannot grasp the difference between a NATION and the CHURCH.

Some five years ago I was about twenty miles from the Kentucky border when I first heard that curious expression "Priesthood Of The Church." I rushed back to civilization and searched my Bible for a reference to it and I have been searching for it ever since. What I searched for was ONE CLEAR CUT STATEMENT THAT SAID CHRIST'S CHURCH IS HIS PRIEST. I have searched in Hebrew, Greek and English. I would have searched in Arabic, Etruscan, Hindustani or Hillbilly if it had made any sense to do so. I wanted one. ONE clear cut statement but I have never found it. The only thing I have ever found is the rationale of men's minds that have created a priesthood from whole cloth and wrapped the church up in it. They do not lie, they are merely confused with a pedantic confusion that is confusing us all.

There are surely mysteries and shadows in the Scriptures but what God wants us to see clearly He reveals clearly. Our Lord is not afraid of the English language. When he says, "Christ our Passover," or "For by grace are ye saved through faith," He is using clear cut statements of vital facts. He attaches some importance to these facts for He uses great clarity in communicating them. IF GOD PLACES ANY IMPORTANCE ON THE "PRIESTHOOD" WHY DOES HE NOT SPEAK OF IT PLAINLY SO HIS CHILDREN CAN UNDERSTAND. I think we know the answer do we not? Doctrines such as the priesthood lend a certain aura of accomplishment to the adept minds and a certain elevation of their status among the tribes of men. They see (or say they do) what the lower orders do not. They take the status of one-eyed men in the world of the blind. They are superior. Sure they are.

BAPTISTS ARE A SPECIAL PEOPLE AND BAPTIST CHURCHES ARE SPECIAL CREATIONS. Not of the Cherubim or the Seraphim is it said, "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God" (Eph. 3:10). The ministry of Christ's church is not earth bound but extra-terrestrial and it is glorious unto God. Yet, even within this supreme glory the church cannot exceed the bounds that God has placed for her. She is glorious only within the realm of her capacities and operations that have been structured by God Almighty.

We are a superior people. We are superior because we are Baptists by grace. Nothing of earth can approach unto us. No one ever "joins" a church because we are set in the church by God. This gives us the highest rank of worth on earth. We are not just Sons but Baptist Sons. WE ARE BETTER BY GRACE. However, we must never let our God-given superiority blind us and lead us astray into paths of pomposity where we demean our heritage and are lifted up with a false pride. Our peerage is glorious enough without being garnished by false and prodigious means. It isn't necessary to preen the church of Jesus Christ as though she were a dowdy creature of earth. She is sufficiently beautiful as God has made her.

Beyond the mere error of this doctrine I do not like the implied slur that is on every page and in every utterance. This slur is very subtle and many times carefully hidden but it emerges nevertheless and it says that you are not really a devoted servant of God lest you believe in the "Priesthood." This I resent. I resent it because it is not spoken plainly but only hinted at most of the time.

The brethren have the church as the vortex of everything and by a theological bit of centripetal magnetism they have everything drawn inwardly to the church. I may be confused but I have always thought that Christ was the vortex of everything. Every time there is a gap in their theology they insert the church as a sort of exculpating apostrophe to fill the void. This doctrine is so poorly calibrated that it must constantly be caulked with church, church, church, ever and always the church or it shall fall apart. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE DEVOTED TO JESUS CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF USING THE CHURCH AS A SORT OF BIOLOGICAL APPENDAGE TO EVERY DOCTRINE AND EVERY ACTIVITY IN THE BIBLE. Like everything else, the church is glorious in her place. Beyond that place she transgresses and those who put her beyond that place transgress and grievously so.

There is certainly a ranking and a stratification even among the elect of God. All of God's children were saved the same identical way but they are different people not carbon copies. There is as wondrous a diversity among God's children as there is in His creation. Not all Baptists are stratified the same. There is surely some difference between a disobedient Baptist and a faithful Baptist (as God defines faithfulness). There are degrees of rewards just as there are degrees of punishment.

For simplicity's sake let me tell you now that this overview and the book and doctrine I am referring to turns on one question and one only, IS CHRIST'S CHURCH A PRIEST? Nothing else is vital within itself for everybody else only contributes to, or else denies, this basic question.

IS CHRIST'S CHURCH A PRIEST? No. She does not function as a priest nor does she have any similarity to a priest. I SAY THAT IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A CHURCH TO BE A PRIEST AND I WILL STAKE THIS ENTIRE OVERVIEW ON THIS PREMISE. IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. If I do not prove this before I finish then disregard everything else I have said. I shall prove it beyond question and beyond doubt. I will prove it because the author of the book and the brethren at large prove it as well. The book on the priesthood inadvertently and by indirection proves the very opposite of what it intended to prove and I am delighted by it.

Before this book was written, the brethren had some leeway of expression because no one ever really knew what the priesthood was or what the brethren were talking about when they referred to it. Now they have no shield. They have loosed the hounds that will arrive baying at their own door.

PART ll

"Ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right" (Job. 42:8).

("Refined policy ever has been the parent of confusion, and ever shall be so long as the world endures." Edmund Burke, Conciliation With America).

"The Priesthood Of The Church" has been refined in the compress of human reasoning and distilled by the intellect until it is without form and void of spiritual content. It is attractive, but void. It is a very reasonable doctrine and this should tell us something.

Paul cautioned his young friend Timothy to avoid genealogies and fables which "minister questions" (I Tim. 1:4). Fables and genealogies are not the only point of danger. Any doctrine that generates more questions than answers has some very serious inborn problems. I don't pretend to understand all Bible themes but I do have more answers than questions. On the "Priesthood" I have only questions . . . questions that never seem to get answered.

We are told in the book that the commission found in Matthew 28 necessitates the existence of a priesthood just as in the Old Testament. We are not told why we are just told that it does. Is not a New Testament commission somewhat different than an Old Testament command? If it is then why does it require a priesthood? No one can say. The "Priesthood" seems to be a fascination with futility. It is very refined but extremely futile.

I am going to take the ASSUMPTIONS found in the book as I come to them and if my references are somewhat confused at times please remember that I cannot make exact quotations from the book.

Early on we encounter the expression "in church capacity." No one ever defines this term but it keeps emerging none the less. We are never told what it means. We are referred to James 5:16 and told that this applies only to those "in church capacity." My question of course is "can we not confess our faults to one another or pray unless we are 'in church capacity'?" Unless words are no longer words but have become potatoes we are told that you cannot pray or confess your faults unless you are a church member. Do the brethren believe this? I cannot believe they do BUT THEY SAY THIS.

We are referred to I Corinthians 9:24-27 and II Timothy 2:5. The one is about a race and the other about striving. We are told these verses are only valid to those in "church capacity." Do they say this? Only, if you have a fictive mind. Does their context say this? Does the book in which they appear say this? Does the Bible in which they appear say this? Why do they make these verses apply to church membership (if that's what "in church capacity" means) when the Scripture doesn't say so? Who says that "lawfully" means "in church capacity"? Who? Why, the brethren do. God doesn't and the Scriptures do not. Only they do.

Someone once asked Daniel Boone if he had ever been lost in the woods. He replied, "I've never been lost in the woods but I was once bewildered in the woods for three days." I have not lost myself in this doctrine but I have been bewildered in a score of days thrice over. What bewilders me as much as anything is the constant, recurring use of that curious, elusive term "in church capacity." What in the world does it mean?

As I have said, the English language is broad and vast and enables you to formulate thoughts and ideas in many different, wondrous ways. I don't care how a term is expressed in English as long as it is understandable and ACCURATE. I soon tire of hearing the same thoughts expressed in the same tired, bland way.

I can only assume that "in church capacity" means that people are members of Christ's church. If I have misunderstood the expression please forgive me. It might be well if the brethren would publish a "priesthood" dictionary to explain priesthood terms. I present this as a modest proposal but as a serious one.

Although the term is not clear it is startlingly clear that the brethren wish to convey the impression that the only people who serve God acceptably are those who do it "in church capacity." This leads me to a more serious ERROR. I emphasize error because error it is. If you ASSUME that the priesthood resides only in the church you must likewise ASSUME that every epistle was a church epistle and that every saint was a church member (and is a church member). This is what the brethren do and what the book does in particular.

Are the Bible epistles "church epistles"? The first time I heard that, I thought the person was surely joking. The brethren are at least consistent. Once they embark on a course they would rather throw themselves over a precipice than admit that they have fused together a fulminating doctrine that will explode at the least touch. This doctrine is dangerous.

Are the New Testament epistles "church epistles"? We are told they are. In fact we are told more than that. I must be careful lest I give a quotation but we are told that WE SHOULD READ ALL NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES AS BEING WRITTEN TO OR ABOUT CHURCHES. We are told that even TIMOTHY AND TITUS should be read this way. We are told that if we do this that we will then have a proper understanding.

When I first read and heard this I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I still can't quite believe it. However, I woke up the next day and the book still said the same thing, so I assume the author means it. I have read the writings of every religion on earth that I could find literature on. But, in my readings here and in Metaphysics and Existentialism I have never found an expression that matches this for originality and the ability to shock. I am glad the book is a copyrighted document because an expression like that should be preserved in its original purity for all to see. I wouldn't have that expression changed for anything, not one jot or tittle, for the entire doctrine hangs on it.

I simply cannot believe that our brother means what he says when he tells us to read all the epistles as being written to or about churches. Brethren, where will such a methodology lead us? You can obviously read anything any way you like but that doesn't change the internal content of what you read. Simply saying that an epistle is written to or about a church doesn't make it so. The internal content determines this.

You can read Jude as being a MacDonald's menu, a schematic for an Atlas rocket, or being written to a church but it isn't. You can read the epistles of Timothy, James, Peter, John, Philemon or Titus as being recipes for fondue, dissertations on roast pig, Russian poetry, Chinese maxims or church epistles but they are not. You can read Hebrews as being a church epistle or a lesson in Renaissance art but it is neither. What church was Jude, Timothy, Titus, etc., written to? We know clearly which church Corinthians, Galatians and Thessalonians were written to but what about the other epistles that the brethren label so capriciously as being written to or about churches?

On the question at hand we must use some sort of discernible order or we are going to find ourselves reading Isaiah as a "Medes" book simply because the word is mentioned there in 13:7, or reading Daniel as a "leopard" book, 7:6. Is James a "moth-eaten" book simply because the word is used in 5:2? Is John a "Cain" epistle, 3:12? Is Colossians a "philosophy" epistle, 2:8 or is I Peter a "war" epistle, 2:11?

If you follow the brethren's advice you can read Genesis as a play and Lamentations as a jest. You can read any Bible book any way you want to regardless of internal content.

By one fatal stroke of his pen the author has reduced the Bible to a vast confusion and has cast us upon an endless sea without anchor, without power, without compass and without direction. If you must wrest the Scriptures so far out of line to prove the "Priesthood" it simply isn't worth proving at all. NOTHING IS WORTH PROVING IF YOU MUST DO THIS. We have all been guilty of misunderstanding a Scripture and misapplying it out of wrong mindedness, pride, stupidity or just plain ignorance. But there is a vast difference between misapplying a Scripture and MISAPPLYING SOME 15 OR SO BOOKS OF THE BIBLE.

The "Priesthood" necessitates (the author's word) an undue emphasis on church membership and this in turn necessitates an unalloyed assumption that every epistle and every person in the New Testament that were of any worth were worthy only as they were "in church capacity." Do you believe this dear reader?

We are told by the brethren that the principles whereby God dealt with Israel are the same principles whereby He deals with us. This is the most frail kind of ASSUMPTION and it won't stand the scrutiny of light. This statement is the life of the "Priesthood" but the death of Bible theology. I don't like invidious comparisons but more than that I don't like INACCURATE ones. Typology is a valid study no doubt but I tire of it very quickly when it wanders far afield into the dank swamps of supposition. I use types sparingly if at all and I particularly object to people being typed as an effigy of my Lord.

The brethren usually pull out a few selective principles in order to establish similarities but let's not be so selective. Does God deal with us like He did Israel? How long since you've circumcised your male children? Is that not a principle in the Old Testament? How long since you've seen a blood sacrifice? How long since you've been a member of a physical tribe of Israel? How long since you've stoned a disobedient son or an unfaithful wife? How long since you've married a dead brother's wife to raise up seed to your brother? How long since you've lived in the land of Canaan? How long since you were under the law? How long since you observed the dietary laws? How long? Does God deal with us by the same principles He dealt with Israel? I could make a book of these questions but why go on? If you believe that God deals with us like He dealt with Israel then please feel free to believe it but don't say the Bible says it. Does not the term "new testament" (Heb. 9:15) mean anything? Nothing could be more dissimilar under creation than God's dealing with us and His dealing with Israel. Was every Israelite a free, born-again Son of God and consequently a spiritual being? We are all created by the same God we are not of the same caste as Israel. This is where the "Priesthood" inevitably breaks down. We are Gentiles. New-born Gentiles. How many Gentiles were priests in God's temple?

The church is designed to be mobile unto "all nations" (Matt. 28:19) but Israel was only mobile in the desert journey. When settled in the land as a nation she was never designed to function anywhere else as a nation. Baptists have been scattered over the earth in obedience to God's command but Israel as a nation cannot be obedient anywhere in the world but in the land of Canaan. Is this the same principle? Israel isn't the church and the church isn't Israel. No one can possibly tell what great harm has been wrought by people who simply are unable to distinguish between Israel, the kingdom of God, the family of God, and the church. Libraries could be filled with tomes of error that were written by men who could not make this simple distinction.

I fear that the book on the priesthood will outlive its author unto the breaking down and destruction of long sealed fellowships and long standing unity. If the dear brother had only preached that the epistles were all written to churches the harm would have been limited. If he had only preached that God deals with us as with Israel his words would hopefully be soon lost in the sweep of time. If he had only preached that you only receive God's name at baptism. If he had only preached that all saints and disciples in the Bible were church members, if he had only preached that Christ received His birthright and priesthood from Levi rather than from God, if he had only preached that the church has a birthright and can lose it, if he had only preached that the anointing is only in the church and if he had only preached the dozen or so other grievous errors in the book then the effect would have been devastating but limited to scope. HOWEVER SOME STRANGE DESPERATE NECESSITY COMPELLED HIM TO WRITE THESE OPINIONS OUT AND THE WRITING OF THEM HAS CAUSED (AND WILL CONTINUE TO CAUSE) CONFUSION FROM CALIFORNIA TO THE SWAMPS OF FLORIDA.

When I reach my dotage (if by God's grace I ever do) I pray even now that God will break either my arms or my typewriter before I write an intemperate, unstudied book. We read in Job 32:9 that "Great men are not always wise; neither do the aged understand judgment."

Brethren, when we are faced with the defection of good men and true from the ranks of the faithful unto the banner of the "priesthood" we cannot be sparing. We must be loving but our voice must be heard. Think, my brethren, think. Think before you embrace a dogma that has no substance. Think before you give vows to a system that has no foundation. Think.

The doctrine of the priesthood of the church is the most inconsistent dogma that I believe I have ever encountered. If you remove one building block from it the entire structure will shrivel up. It is like an inverted pyramid. It sits on one point and is precariously balanced at best. Remove that one point and the entire structure tumbles to ruin and to the ruin of those who are sheltered under it. The "priesthood" (unlike a true pyramid) sits on several frail paints, but the main point is the "Birthright."

It is on the subject of the "birthright" that the entire structure is built and it is upon the "birthright" that I shall hopefully cast it down before this overview is completed. Please give much thought to the subject of the "birthright" as these articles continue and observe with me the frailty of the system that the brethren have constructed around this one point of thought. I say point of thought because it is supported by a single point of Scripture.

I perceive in the doctrine of the "priesthood" a small pocket sewn into a scholarly robe where praise is to be stored. I see in the "priesthood" a pedantic quality that exists to vindicate scholarship and for nothing else. I see God diminished and man elevated while man says "praise the Lord." I see this with sorrow and I wish that I were wrong but I see it none the less.

PART III

"Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars" (Prov. 9:1).

"Though this be madness, yet there is method in it." Shakespeare, Hamlet 11.2.

Wisdom's prevailing method is to construct a sure and certain foundation, for without this the entire structure must fall. Our Scripture above speaks of the blessed completeness of this method. The method that our good friends have used to construct the "priesthood" is surely not madness but it is far from wisdom. It is a method of sentiency and not Scripture. I don't intend to demean my brethren for they are good and intelligent men but surely they must see that if the foundation is weak then the structure must also be weak. If the foundation is strong then it can withstand an occasional error in construction without the entire building tumbling down. The first lesson in building, whether spiritual or material, is to make your foundation strong.

I once spent a very nervous year on an island in the Aleutians which was nothing but a mountain set on several other mountain peaks under the sea. Each time we had an earthquake or earth tremor (which was usually about once every two weeks) we thought the entire island was going to tumble into the sea. Geological surveys assured us of the possibility. We slept lightly therefore because we never knew when we would wake up treading water and spitting seaweed.

My good friends and brethren in the "priesthood" camp must find themselves on a similarly tenuous ground. Their foundation is as faulty as mine was. With just a little shake, a little tremor their carefully built structure must collapse. They have my sympathy. I have lived on shaky ground myself where the raging sea stood by to receive the fall of the foolish. Wisdom has a septennial foundation but I'm afraid that the "priesthood" is built otherwise.

One of the fondest memories of my early childhood was a Saturday morning radio program called, "Let's Pretend." It was pure fantasy and I loved it. There were the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Anderson and though it was fantasy and make believe I am convinced it was better than the "kill, crush, destroy" genre that makes up Saturday morning television viewing for children today. It was fantasy and didn't pretend any pretense at being anything else.

When we were children these things were delightful and we delighted in them but now that we've put off childhood days and put on the responsibilities of Christian manhood we cannot deal in pretense for ours is a solemn task. If I hurt my brethren by the following I must apologize in advance but it must be said. I believe that my good friends of the "priesthood" genre are still playing "Let's Pretend."

Most of the Bible epistles were not written to churches and surely the brethren realize this but they are saying "let's pretend they were." God deals differently with born again sons than with the nation of Israel but my brethren are saying "let's pretend He doesn't." There were many godly people in the New Testament that were not recorded as being church members but my brethren are saying, "let's pretend that all saints and disciples were in the church." Levi's priesthood was distinct from Christ's but my brother and author of the book is saying "let's pretend that Christ inherited Levi's birthright and priesthood." LET'S PRETEND. I could list a score of things but I will chronicle them in due course where my friends are pretending a meaning where none exists. They have built a structure over raging water and it must surely fall for it is built on the tremulous little peaks of "let's pretend."

If you think that I am being unduly critical then follow with me into these areas of pretense. In the brother's book we are told that Satan is not really terribly upset with saints of God as individuals but as He finds them "in church capacity." We are referred to Acts 8:1-3, I Corinthian 15: 9, Galatians 1:13.

In another place in the book we are told that such words and phrases as "disciples," "saints," "of this way" mean those who are "in church capacity." We are referred to Acts 9:1-13,21; 22:4,19; 26:10; I Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13; Philippians 3:6; Revelation 13:7.

By this pretense our brother clumsily attempts to show us that only those "in church capacity" were the ones that generated anger and persecution by Satan, Paul and others.

In my simplistic ignorance I have always thought that the word "saint" meant a saint and the word "disciple" meant a disciple. I am now told that these words mean a church (or a church member). I won't bore you with the Greek but I assure you that the words saint, disciple and church are different.

In the references our brother gives (which I hope you read) there is no qualifying information to make the words saint, disciple, of this way mean anything else other than what they always mean. I am just simple enough to understand that when God is speaking of a saint He means a saint, when He speaks of a disciple He means a disciple and when He speaks of a church He means a church. This isn't hard to understand and it assuredly isn't difficult to believe.

Is Satan's rage restricted to children of God only as he finds them "in church capacity"? Did Paul only persecute saints or disciples as he found them "in church capacity"? Am I to understand that Satan's wrath is diminished toward a child of God simply because he's not a member of the church? This is what my brethren tell me. Can you believe that Satan's rage is that capricious and whimsical?

I don't have any difficulty in believing that Paul persecuted the people of God in whatever capacity he found them. If he found them in the mountains or the valleys, in the barn or on the roof, he persecuted them. He persecuted them singly, in family groups, in church assemblies or walking down the street. He persecuted them in the markets, the deserts, the cities and the hamlets. On the roads or the by-paths he delivered them up.

Did Paul only persecute church members? Am I to believe that he was that selective? Was his wrath so benign and his ire so mellow that he would not persecute a single acknowledged believer in Jesus Christ if he came upon him? If Paul found a believer or a family of believers (who were not church members) would he have let them go? Was Saul of Tarsus this discriminating?

We are fast approaching the area of lunacy. Listen friends, what qualification did a believer have to possess in order to be eligible for persecution by Paul? What were the prerequisites? They are simple and I feel like I am lecturing a kindergarten class to even mention them. For Paul to harm you, you simply had to be a known believer in Jesus Christ. From that instant forward you were as qualified as you ever needed to be.

Saint / disciple / of this way = church. Fascinating linkage. I failed math in the 9th grade but I have enough mathematical discernment to know that this equation is false. This type of thinking is unworthy of intelligent brethren.

If I were to tell the brethren that I drove a car, drove a mule, or drove someone crazy would they assume that I was speaking of the same thing? If I told them that I threw a ball, threw a party or threw a tantrum would they assume that I was speaking of the same thing? If I told them that I ran a race, ran amok, or ran out of sugar would they assume that I was speaking of the same thing? Of course not. Yet, they tell me quite blandly that when God speaks of a saint, a disciple, of this way that these expressions automatically mean a church. I have seldom encountered word mutations to this degree before.

We are told that there is a "pure priestly perpetuity" and that Paul labored and worked in order to maintain his position in the priesthood. I had always understood that Paul labored for Jesus but now I am informed that his labor was addressed to sustaining himself in the priesthood. Fascinating.

What about Paul's fear of losing his status in the priesthood that the brother lays before us as a Biblical fact? Is it true? Our brother says that Paul did what he did for the priesthood. Now he is no doubt more intimately acquainted with the mind and motives of Paul than I am. However, this generates a question in my mind (a point based on silence if you please). If the priesthood so occupied Paul's labor and motives, if this was the impetus behind his service, if being a priest (and maintaining this) was his goal, WHY THEN IN ALL OF HIS WRITINGS DID HE NOT ONCE, NOT ONCE, NOT ONCE, EVEN USE THE WORD PRIEST OR PRIESTHOOD? WHY?

Now I see my brethren rise up in their chairs and say, "PAUL WROTE HEBREWS." Did he? If anyone knows this for a certainty let him step forth and receive the plaudits of the scholarly world for knowing what no one else on earth knows with certainty. Let him step forth.

However, let us be charitably polemic and say just for discussion that Paul wrote Hebrews. However, in conceding this we really concede nothing. Even if Paul wrote Hebrews why is he silent on the priesthood everywhere else? Why?

If the Bible says something once that is sufficient to establish the fact or the doctrine. . . . I realize this. But as usual I am left with a question. Didn't the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Romans and all those other outlying Gentiles need to know something that so vitally affected their lives before God? Yet, Paul seems to have slighted them. Even the Corinthians who were in pretty bad shape even for Baptists, should have been told something about the "priesthood" but Paul apparently failed them. Perhaps the reason the Corinthians were so disorderly was because they didn't understand about the "priesthood."

I wouldn't blame you if you rejected my comments on this subject of Paul and the priesthood. In your place I would probably do the same. I repeat that points based on silence do not deserve much consideration. I only wish that I could find one statement that says Paul wanted to maintain his place in the priesthood and that this was the reason he labored and suffered so. Just one reference. Ah, well we are lost in "let's pretend" once again.

We are told that God works the same way in all ages of time and that He does it according to an operational imperative called "gospel order." I don't have any idea what "gospel order" means but it must mean something to my brethren for they use it so often. Is God mutable? Certainly not. Does God change? Certainly not. Does God use different methods of working out His will in different points of time? Certainly He does. If you don't know this you are testifying that you have never read the Bible with any care.

There is an order of operation that our Lord utilizes but it is not always the same method. Did God deal with Adam, Noah, Israel the man, Israel the nation, and the church and the individual believer the same identical way? Of course not. Does this mean that God changes? No, it merely shows the outworking of His eternal will and purpose in different points of time.

The reason I mention all this is because our brethren think you are disloyal to God if you do not believe that God rubber stamps all His acts and redo's the same deeds without adding to or taking away. They tell me that the way God put His name upon His nation and people in the Old Testament is the same way He does it in the New Testament. In the book, Deuteronomy 17:8-13 and Matthew 18:15-18 are linked and said to be "almost . . . identical." I smile at our brother's concept of similarities. Through his book he insists that the church functions as a priest. In the Deuteronomy reference the people of Israel are instructed to go to the priests, "if there arise a matter too hard for them in Judgment." There the priests were to teach them "according to the sentence of the law." It further says that if a man will not harken to the priest that "even that man shall die." Please contrast this with Matthew 18:15-18.

In Deuteronomy the priests judge those who are not priests. Our brother says the church is a priest. He further says that the two references are almost identical. "Almost" is not quite good enough because if the church is a priest our brother had the priest judging part of the priest whereas in Deuteronomy they judged the people who were not priests. How can you sub-divide a priest this way? The priests in Deuteronomy had one function while the church in Matthew has a totally distinct function. If the church is a priest it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to make a correlation between the two Scriptures. This is not the only inconsistency. The sentence upon the man who acted presumptuously was that "man shall die." Is this almost identical with Matthew 18? How long has it been since a Baptist church executed anyone and used Matthew 18 as a justification?

When Paul says "as also saith the law" (I Cor. 14:34), I know that he has reference to a principle in the New that was viable in the Old. When this type of qualification is absent there is every reason to believe that the particular commandment is original to the church or the disciples of God so that they might carry out their unique ministry under their High Priest.

Unique is the key word in the above sentence because the church is unique and distinct from every other operation of God. Why do my good brethren insist on making Christ's church just a neo-Israel and having her operate under the impossible restrictions of Israel? We have a spiritual ministry not a physical one. The disparity between Israel and Christ's church is so great that it can only be reckoned by God. When I say this do not accuse me of saying that our Sovereign God changes. HE DOES NOT. HE FULFILLS HIS PURPOSE IN THE MANNER HE DETERMINES BEST. In this age He is fulfilling His purpose through His church and HIS CHURCH IS NOT ISRAEL.

In the book our brother says that since God honored and upheld the decisions of the priests in the Old Testament and since He honors and upholds the decisions of His church that this makes the church a priest. With this level of logic I can see us drifting back into the murky dark ages of Biblical ignorance. Did God honor and uphold the decisions of His prophets? Were they priests? No. Did God honor and uphold the decisions of Gentile nations upon occasion? Were they priests? No. Did God honor and uphold the decisions of lost people upon occasion? Were they priests? Of course not. Did God honor and uphold decisions made by David, Solomon and the judges? Were they priests? Of course not. Please spare us anymore of this twilight logic. I don't think I can stand another dose.

The above is bad but what follows is dangerous. We are told in the book that the word "saints" means those people who are saved and in "church capacity" because no one else is thus addressed in the New Testament. Incredible? Yes, very incredible. What our brother has said is that only Baptists are saved. Has he not said this? Run a reference on the word "saint" and see if it always refers to those in "church capacity." Start with Matthew 27:52 and see for yourself.

The Greek word for "saint" means holy or sanctified. Does our brother believe that a child of God is in no way holy or sanctified until he is a church member? Yes, he does. By his usage of the word "saint" he does. In colloquial English he is saying, "Only Baptists are saved." If he is not saying this then pray tell just what is he saying?

Our brother fashions a type out of Deuteronomy 26:1-10 and he tells us that these requirements have to be met by the Christian believer. He then says that the only place they can be met is in the church which is a priest. He attempts to place a guilt syndrome upon us by saying "how can these requirements be met by the believer"? I have a question, "WHO SAYS THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS IN DEUTERONOMY HAVE TO BE MET BY THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVER"? Who says so? Our brother says so and the reason he does is that they are "according to the type." Who established the type? Who do you think. The Christian must surely make his conversion known but not according to Deuteronomy 26:1-10.

God has placed His name in His nation, in His tabernacle, in His Temple and in His church. Our brother points this out to us. HE FURTHER TELLS US THAT THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GET GOD'S NAME PLACED UPON YOU IS IN BAPTISM AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. He says this is clear, precise words and in saying it he insults every free-born child of God. I only wish that I could give you the exact quotation from the book without fear of litigation.

God has placed His name in these places our brother mentions but has He not placed His name somewhere else? Do not His children bear His name? If you do not have your father's name what does that make you?

By his callous statement our brother has unwittingly degraded us all. I am a son of God and I bear His name AND I DIDN'T HAVE TO BE BAPTIZED TO GET IT. It was mine by right of birth. When does a son acquire his father's name, at birth or when he reaches a man's estate? In his passion to establish a spurious priesthood our dear brother has said by inference that we were all illegitimate until we were baptized. My Father's name is Jehovah and my blood brother's name is Christ, the eternal Son of Jehovah, and my name is Ray, son of Jehovah. I didn't acquire this name in a Baptist church. My brother has overstepped himself and placed himself on fighting ground by his enthetic transfer of other functions into the church. He has dishonored God and demeaned the brotherhood.

It is a right of birth to be called by your Father's name unless you are illegitimate. Read Ephesians 2:15, II Timothy 2:19 or I John 3:1. I have never read such tactless prattle in my life as when our brother says you only get God's name at baptism.

You can be casual and academically polemic in other things, but not in this. IF YOU SAY A MAN DOESN'T HAVE HIS FATHER'S NAME YOU CALL INTO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF HIS BIRTH.

I have traveled over most of this globe and I have seen heathen cultures in the raw and pagans of every caste. I have exchanged compliments and insults with English gentlemen and heathen Chinese. In most places in the world you can walk unmolested if you behave decently and wear a smile of good will.

Some cultures and castes are hard to insult and you can wipe your feet on them. Others are like the French Creoles of New Orleans in the 18th and 19th centuries who would smell an insult a mile away, and then you had to meet your man under the oaks with sword or gun.

Insults are variable with time, place, cult and caste. You may insult the color of a man's hair or the shape of his nose in many places of the world and emerge with a whole skin. You may question his children's intelligence or his wife's virtue and perhaps escape. You may debase his honor, deface his property or displace his money and he might smile. BUT, IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD I HAVE TRAVELED IN IF YOU QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF A MAN'S BIRTH YOU HAD BETTER BE PREPARED TO DEFEND YOUR OPINION WITH WEAPONRY.

I personally resent our brother's unthought, unwise, unseemly. unnecessary, unmitigated, unconscionable and unheard of statement that you only receive God's name at baptism. He has questioned the legitimacy of my spiritual birth and of every son of God outside the church. I AM A BAPTIST BY GRACE . . . THANK GOD. BUT I WAS A SON BEFORE I WAS A BAPTIST AND I HAD MY FATHER'S NAME. I was also a priest before I was a Baptist and so was every other child of God that He has placed in His church. The only people who are qualified for church membership are those who have been made priests in the blood of Jesus.

The good people of Eastern Kentucky are by and large the most polite and well mannered people it has been my honor to meet. They have their share of hardheads and bores like anyplace else but the ratio is smaller. I have lived and traveled in hollows where the National Guard and State Police did not go and have been treated with kindness. When strangers say stupid and unthoughtful things the people are forebearing. However, some words go beyond the bounds of the laws of hospitality and become "fightin' words." When a man calls into question the legitimacy of my spiritual birth I am just enough of a Kentuckian to say "those are fightin' words." A man might insult my earthly mother and father and I hope that I would have the grace as a Christian to walk away. There are many crass people in the world and God's people are not to be brawlers. However, my spiritual birth is a very serious and solemn subject with me and should be with each child of God. I will brook no insult in this area.

This instance reminds me of the untutored young man who was invited to a formal dinner. He drank the water in the finger bowl, ate his neighbor's salad, ate his soup with a fork, told cheap and raucous jokes, compared the dinner ware to what his sister once bought at a garage sale, slapped his hostess on the back, casually demeaned his host and then went smilingly on his way, not once realizing that he had grossly insulted the entire company.

I cannot believe that the author meant to insult his kinsmen but intended or not the insult is there. In my younger days I used to deal in cattle and horses and sometime we would encounter a wild horse that didn't want to be loaded in the truck. We usually got him loaded but in the process we broke so many ropes, got ourselves so muddy and soiled, destroyed so much property and injured ourselves and the horse so grievously we often wondered if it was really worth it for just a few dollars profit.

The priesthood is so tangled up with ropes its adherents have cast on it to buoy it up, it is so soiled, it has caused so much injury, it is so tangled up, it has destroyed so much in fellowship and the upbuilding of God's kingdom, it has torn down so many walls and frightened so many people that I am surprised that someone hasn't begun to wonder if it is really worth it just to receive a little scholarly adoration. I well remember some wild horses that I would release after a little struggle because I knew that the loading would be so expensive that it wasn't worth the effort. In attempting to load the "priesthood of the church" on our backs our brethren are ripping asunder the work of God. All this in order to tame a wild doctrine that will not be tamed.

PART IV

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3).

"It is a great advantage for a system of philosophy to be substantially true." Santayana.

I am not too sure whether Santayana is being sarcastic with us or not but he presents a needed thought. Since the priesthood of the church is so devoid of spiritual content I cannot help but view it as a philosophy. Viewing it as a philosophy it still remains inaccurate so we are no better off.

The very foundations of the Bible that I have viewed as substantial are destroyed by the priesthood of the church as our brother presents it in his book. We are now coming to the very substance or core of the priesthood case. Our brother refers us to Hebrews 7:12 and thereby destroys himself. He says that the change mentioned here does not mean abolished but merely changed.

The brethren would do well to stay away from Hebrews in general and Hebrews 7 in particular for it is their undoing. Our brother's book is a tangled apparatus that is designed to prove one single point ... THAT THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS A PRIEST. Everything he says is addressed to this single point. Not just any priest mind you. Not a priest of Baal or of Diana. Not just any priest, but a Levitical type priest, enforcing Old Testament requirements, operating under the principles of the Old Testament law and functioning as the order of Aaron functioned.

Throughout the book our brother gives more references and types than I have space to list (even if I could quote from the book) to prove that the church has pretty much the same requirements and responsibilities as a priest of the Levitical priesthood had. Every priesthood type he uses is a Levitical type. Here his manufactured doctrine breaks down.

Can a church be a priest on the order of the Levitical as our brother has said? No, it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Our brother says that the truths of types are hard and fast. I am thankful that he appreciates this for his types (I emphasize his types) are his undoing.

Let us look at some types. What was the first and major qualification for a Levitical priest? He had to be a member of the tribe of Levi of course. Is the church of Jesus Christ a member of the tribe of Levi? No. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS THE BODY OF JESUS AND THEREFORE IS A MEMBER OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH. Was there ever an Aaronic priest from Judah? Never. Our brother tells us that the sacrifices had to be offered by the hands of a qualified priest but our Lord Himself could not qualify to be a priest while on earth because He sprung out of Judah not Levi. Read Hebrews 7: 13-14 and 8:4. Had Jesus tried to officiate as a priest in the temple they would have sought to slay Him. "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda" (Heb. 7:14).

Our blood lineage is with Christ and, since our Lord is of Judah, where then are we and where then is His church? The church is Christ's body. Can the church be a Levitical type priest when Christ Himself couldn't? IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A MEMBER OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH TO BE A PRIEST AFTER THE "ORDER OF AARON" OR ANY TYPE OF IT AND TO MINISTER THE THINGS THAT THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD MINISTERED EITHER IN TYPE OR ACTUALLY. PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Remember that types are merely representatives of the actual. If the type breaks down then what it represents cannot be held true.

When you read Hebrews 7:12 don't ever separate it from Verse 11 as our brother does because the conjunction "For" binds them together. Verse 11 tells us that down through the long ages there have been two priesthoods running parallel but totally dissimilar. Dissimilar in concept, nature, duties, responsibilities and the outcome of these responsibilities. One priesthood antedates the other for it has been "for ever." Compare the priesthood of Melchisedec to the priesthood of Aaron. Note their differences and then tell me that we must function after the "order of Aaron" in type or any other way.

Verse 12 speaks of the "priesthood being changed." Our brother believes that this is speaking of just a superficial change in the Levitical priesthood to fit it to the church and that the Levitical priesthood is still functioning "in church capacity." My friends, the word "changed" means "changed." The Greek word is "Metathesis." It means removed, taken away, put some place else. It is not put in the church for the church, being of Judah, cannot qualify to function as a priest.

If I told the brethren that I changed my suit, changed my job, changed my bank, changed my residence, changed my citizenship, or changed my political party, would they imagine that I was speaking of a superficial change or something in the nature of an exchange? The priesthood is CHANGED. Our Lord is not of the "order of Aaron" and never has been. Neither are we in type or actuality. We are the "seed of Abraham" but of the tribe of Judah through Christ. It was my near kinsman that redeemed me and redeemed you, my friend, if you are saved. Our Lord is a High Priest "forever after the order of Melchisedec," not Aaron.

If it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the church, which is of the tribe of Judah, to be a priest based upon Levitical type, who then was Peter talking to in I Peter 2:9 when he said they were a "royal priesthood"? He wasn't talking to the church because he wasn't even writing to a church and anyway the church cannot qualify as we have proven beyond doubt. Who then? Who's left? All that is left are either saved individuals or lost individuals. Now I can see my brethren rise up out of their chairs when they read this.

They immediately throw a thousand Old Testament requirements at me to say that this cannot be so. In reply I tell them that these requirements are not binding on born-again believers because a born-again believer is not of the "order of Aaron" in type, formality or actuality. We are not Levitical priests but priests of a different and eternal order of priesthood. THIS IS WHAT HEBREWS 7:12 MEANS WHEN IT SPEAKS OF "A CHANGE ALSO IN THE LAW." Since the priesthood is changed THEN THE LAW GOVERNING THE PRIESTHOOD IS CHANGED.

Which priesthood are you a member of dear Christian brother or sister, if you are a member of any? Well, what's left? We can't be Levitical priests because through Christ we're of Judah. What's left? If You are a Sherlock Holmes fan like I am you know that Sherlock told Watson on several occasions that WHEN YOU ELIMINATE ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES, THAT WHICH REMAINS, HOWEVER IMPROBABLE MUST BE THE ANSWER.

I realize that this is Holmes speaking and not the Bible, but this is not an altogether untrue methodology. After we have eliminated the Levitical priesthood as a possibility, what priesthoods are left in the Bible? There are the heathen priesthoods like Baal and there is the priesthood of Melchisedec.

I am not attempting to establish a new doctrine upon the other new doctrines that I am refuting. I am of one blood with my Saviour. My Lord is of Judah and I am one with Him. My Lord is the High Priest of His own priesthood (which by the way is a royal priesthood) and I am one with Him. If I am a member of any priesthood, and Peter assures me that I am, then I must be a member of my Saviour's priesthood which is eternal, all powerful and which passeth not away.

Which law then governs my Saviour's priesthood and consequently my own . . . why it is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus which has made me free from the law of sin and death (Rom. 8:2).

Peter was not talking of just any priesthood but of a "royal" priesthood. This word "royal" is not just an adjective that God sprinkles around in His Word for the sake of decoration and garnishment. When you read the Bible it is well to pay some attention to small words like "royal" for they truly make a difference. However, when your fixation is on the "priesthood" you tend to overlook small words like "royal."

Was the Levitical priesthood a "royal" priesthood? Is it ever spoken of as being a "royal" priesthood? No, but the priesthood in I Peter 2:9 is. The word "royal" is used two other times in the New Testament. In Acts 12:21 it refers to Herod's apparel and in James 2:8 as follows, "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well."

In Peter there is a royal priesthood while in James there is a royal law. What law incorporates all other laws? The Christian law of love. Can only church members demonstrate love? Of course not. Then the sons of God, in whatever capacity, can keep the royal law of love because they are royal priests. Was Levi a royal tribe from which the kings were drawn? Of what tribe is the "King Of kings"? Judah.

Of what tribe consequently are the born-again of God? Judah. We have a priesthood and we have a law before we ever approach the waters of baptism. Our priesthood is of the eternal order that our High Priest ministers within. Our law is the instructions that God gives to His children in the capacity of children of God and to His churches in the capacity of churches. Does this negate the Old Testament? Certainly not. We learn from these things but we perform to a changed law and a ministry of a "new creation" (II Cor. 5:17).

I don't like types although I recognize their uses. A type is an effigy, a picture, a representation. It must bear some resemblance to the reality it represents. I am repeating myself but with good reason. Well meaning men run wild with types and if you will pardon the pun they create typographical errors. I don't like types, but if you're going to use them, then for God's sake have the decency to be CONSISTENT.

The most serious error and the most deadly error in the brother's book is the one I deal with now for it strikes at the very deity of Christ. Our brother tells us that Levi's priesthood has been transferred in symbol to Christ. If you don't see the seriousness of this you soon will.

Our Saviour has an eternal priesthood for He is a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. FOREVER. Eternity extends backward as well as forward. How long has Christ been a High Priest of His own priesthood? Since "forever." Is it possible for a priesthood to be "conveyed" upon Him in symbol or any other way? Of course not! And it is heresy to suggest that it could be. To my sure recollection this is the first time I have ever used the word "heresy" in writing or from the pulpit. It is a word that is overused and overdone. If this is the first time in my entire ministry that I have ever used the word, you can be assured that I must view this error as being serious. The other errors our brethren present I would rank as errors but, my dear friends, this business of a priesthood being conveyed on Christ from Levi is HERESY.

My brother goes beyond this. He is the only person in history that has ever succeeded in dividing Christ. "Is Christ divided"? I Corinthians 1:13. No, He wasn't until this book came along. Now, by a theological slight of hand, my brother has managed to sever the head of the church from the body. I knew my brethren were incisive but this is audacious even for them.

"And he is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Colossians 1:18). The head of the church and the body are one. One in purpose, will and direction. One in ministry and method of ministry. One in entirety. Can a head and a body go in opposite directions, perform different things, have different wills and different purposes without being divided? No. My brother has divided Christ in a very simple and mawkish way. He has the body of Christ, the church, performing in one priesthood while the head of the body is High Priest of another dissimilar priesthood. He has the church functioning as a typical Levite priest while our Lord "hath an unchangeable priesthood" (Heb. 7:24). The two are at cross purposes as to what they can and do accomplish.

The simple souled sons of the French Revolution invented a sure fire cure for treason. The cure was entitled Madame Guillotine. When Madame cured a traitor he ceased from troubling and traitorous ways. She cured him by the simple expedient of separating his treasonous head from his treasonous body. It is not recorded that anyone thus cured ever became a traitor again.

The author has exceeded this. He has separated a head from a body and they both still live. Most carnivals have standard freak shows that are not worth the admission price but there is one show that I will pay to see. When they have an exhibit that shows a man whose head is severed from his body and they both still live, I'll pay to see that. Merely to be able to see something that can rival my brother's incisive ability.

You can type yourself into a dilemma, but then I've probably said that before. Our brother says that the church is a priest. He doesn't say that she is "like a priest" but that she "is" a priest . . . operationally so and he even gives the operations this church/priest is to perform. There is nothing abstract here. He makes specific statements about a specific entity that performs specific duties. Now, I desperately want to ask, "HOW MANY FEMALE PRIESTS HAS GOD EVER ESTABLISHED"?

 Throughout the entirety of the book the author has very carefully, layer upon layer, line upon line, built up a case for God's dealings and progressive dealings through a patriarchal line. The birthright is a male prerogative. The priesthood is a male prerogative. The ruling from rank and position and status is a male prerogative. All of this our brother has established in clear, unmistakable terms. He takes chapters to tell of God's dealings from Adam to Christ and it is all through males. This is God's method . . . through males. At the climax our brother completely negates his entire structure that he has so carefully built up by telling us that for the first time in the entirety of human history GOD HAS ORDAINED TO HAVE A FEMALE PRIEST.

That the church is feminine no one will deny (II Cor. 11:2). HOW THEN CAN SHE BE GOD'S PRIEST? She can be God's Bride for He is the head of the church in the same sense that a husband is the head of his wife (Eph. 5:23). She can even be His servant. BUT, SHE CANNOT BE HIS PRIEST.

The methodology in the chapters dealing with "The Birthright," "The Blessing," "The Anointing" and the "Laying On Of Hands" is very similar and they merge together though they speak of different things. When you deal with one you pretty much deal with them all because along with all of them our brother transfers the things of Israel over into the church in wholesale lots.

My brother's error is simple and twofold. In the beginning he fixed his eyes on the wrong priesthood and then he placed it in the wrong place. From such simple errors entire religious systems have been constructed.

We come now to the "Birthright." The entire doctrine of the "priesthood of the church" is built around the "Birthright" and an inept building job it is. We are told that since under Levi things degenerated so badly that God gave the Birthright to Christ. On the surface this doesn't seem too serious but I must repeat my usage of the word HERESY. This is HERESY as I shall point out. It is probably not deliberate heresy but it is heresy. My brother also says that the church has a birthright.

It is sometimes good to break words down into their syllables . . . Christ-mas. auto-mobile, tele-vision, birth-right. What would you imagine a birthright would be? You needn't imagine for it is self evident. It is a right that is intimately connected with birth for the words are intimately connected together. A birthright is a right of birth. Are you born into God's family or into His church? It is inescapable that our brother believes you are born into the church since he gives the church a birthright. Now that's a novel view.

The birthright is a male prerogative. Our brother confirms this in the entire chapter on the subject. How then did the church which is female get a birthright in her own right?

He doesn't say. The word "birthright" appears once in the New Testament in Hebrews 12:16 and refers back to Esau. If the New Testament church has a birthright wouldn't you imagine that God would have said something about it? I know that this is making a point from silence, but wouldn't He? I don't object that the word doesn't appear anywhere else in the New Testament but I do find it strange that the concept doesn't.

God does work through the firstborn son and always has. The law of primogeniture (the law of the birthright) has been in force in most of the world since history first began to be written down. There are very few matriarchal societies and none which are recognized by God. I recommend that you get a good old book and study primogeniture if you haven't already. I have a book in my library, copyright 1864, called "Ancient Law" which is as good as anything I have ever found. I recommend an old book because modern books do not give as good a treatment of primogeniture as an old one does. When the book in my library was copyrighted primogeniture was still the law of the land in most of the world.

Under primogeniture (or the law of the birthright) the title, the estate and the blessing went to the FIRST BORN SON. In many countries every morsel went to the firstborn with nothing for the wife and other children. Please bear this in mind, THAT PRIMOGENITURE (OR THE LAW OF THE BIRTHRIGHT) IS ALWAYS, ALWAYS VESTED IN THE FIRST BORN SON. The father can change it either because of sin or at his pleasure, but unless the father does change it, IT IS ALWAYS VESTED IN THE FIRST BORN SON, and is, a sign of preeminent status and position of rank in a FAMILY. It has never indicated anything else, either in the world or in its usage by God. It indicated status and elevated position of rank. The one with the Birthright was the head of the family. Please remember that THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY. He wasn't the head of a tribe or of a nation or of a club or a clique but he was THE HEAD OF A FAMILY.

I repeat that the author says that the Birthright was taken from Levi and given to Christ. How serious is this? It is serious enough for me to label it HESESY where I've never labeled anything else heresy in print before.

"And he is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell" (Col. 1:18-19). Our Lord is the first begotten of the Father and as such He had all the "position or rank" that He could possibly have. Our brother makes a constant point that the Birthright means a "position or rank." BY TRANSFERRING LEVI'S BIRTHRIGHT TO CHRIST HE FIRST RANKS CHRIST BELOW LEVI AND THEN LIKE A POMPOUS GENERAL OF THE ARMY HE CASUALLY PROMOTES HIM TO A HIGHER POSITION. Can you not see the seriousness of this? The author treats my Lord like He is an army private whom he promotes to sergeant when the mood strikes him. Read the book and see if this is not so.

Why in the name of all that is holy would Christ need Levi's birthright given to Him second hand when he antedates Levi from eternity and is the Son of primogeniture in His own right with His own birthright? To transfer Levi's birthright to Christ is to imply that Christ as the firstborn of the Father did not have a birthright of His own. The birthright involves "position of rank" as the author points out. Does Levi outrank Christ? Our brother says that he did because he must have done so to have had the birthright. Does Christ have two birthrights? The author says He does. He is the first person in history to have two birthrights but according to the author He has His own birthright from eternity and then He has the one that the author casually donated to Him from Levi.

My brethren I don't mind academic exercises in logic nor do I mind exegesis for the sake of exploration, but when you come to denying the deity of Jesus Christ I part company with you. I cannot abide a slur at the eternal God-head.

To be fair I do not believe that the author yet realizes what he has done. I don't believe he intended to deny Christ's deity. He is simply so caught up in the "priesthood" that he apparently doesn't realize what he is doing. I personally know the author as a worshiper of Jesus Christ and if he would ever take the time and trouble to read the book he has written I believe that he would either rewrite it or denounce it. He surely cannot mean what he says. He is too fine a scholar and too able a minister to have denied, with intention, the fact that Christ is very God of very God.

When he writes of the anointing he says that it couldn't be transferred to another tribe. He won't transfer the anointing but he transfers the birthright around like it was a pawn ticket. He transfers it from Levi to Christ who already has His own eternal birthright. Read this part of our brother's book and see if what I tell you isn't. so. Can Levi add anything to Christ? If he can, then we are all doomed. I will speak further of the Birthright in the subsequent issue. In the meantime would someone, some friend, some neighbor please point out to my dear brother and the author of the book just what he has done by his transferring about of the Birthright. If you love him, point this out to him.

PART V

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a Price; therefore glorify God in Your body and in your spirit, Which are God's" (I Cor. 6:19-20).

"Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing" (Heb. 5:10-11).

"If what you taught me be taught to men of all ranks, I shall have nothing but in common with others. But I would rather have you consider that I had rather be superior to other men in abstract and secret knowledge." Extract of a letter from Alexander to Aristotle.

Each elect saint, as he performs his Christian ministry of love and devotion to Christ, has a "high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man" (Heb 8:1-2). Our High Priest has "an unchangeable priesthood" (Heb. 7:24).

Our high priest is "after the similitude of Melchisedec." This Melehisedec appeared from obscurity, was honored of God, and in similitude pictured the type of Priesthood of our Lord and of his elect saints. The priesthood or Aaron which came much later ministered things that indeed were important but which did not have "the power of an endless life" (Heb. 7:16).

The body of each believer is a "temple" and I don't care how much you stress "gospel order" (whatever that means) you cannot make this reference apply to the church. Each believer has a "royal priesthood" (I Peter 2:9), to minister in this temple the commands and requirements of God. Each believer has a "royal law" (James 2:8). Each believer has an individual accountability as a Son before God. If then the body of each saint is a temple and he is a priest unto that temple, where does this leave the church? Does this negate the church and make her irrelevant? Certainly not. The church contains individual priests but is not herself a priest. The functions of the church are clearly stated and the viability of the church is not in question. The individual priesthood of each believer does in no way demean the church. Every elect saint should be a member of a Baptist church which is also a temple of God. Can one temple contain other temples? Why not? It is stated in John 4:2 "in my Father's house are many mansions," i.e. "many abodes."

My brother balks at the mere thought of an individual priesthood and he says that if this is so we would establish the theory of the universal invisible church since (he says) every believer would have the authority to baptize, to set the Lord's table and receive tithes. This leads me to wonder at my brother's complete inability to realize that when the priesthood was changed the law governing the priesthood was also changed unto the glory of God.

The body of each believer is a temple because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Our brother either forgets this or denies it. Among all this talk of temples I don't believe we've ever defined the purpose of a temple. What is it? It is two fold. . . . 1. It is an abiding place of God. 2. It is a place where religious sacrifices are made and religious duties are performed. Can the body of the believer qualify as a temple? Certainly.

My brethren cannot grasp the thought that a New Testament priest is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from an Old Testament one. HIS DUTIES ARE DIFFERENT, HIS QUALIFICATIONS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. If every believer is a priest would this establish the theory of a universal, invisible church? I can't see how it would. If the New Testament priest has the same duties as the Old Testament one then this might be true but he doesn't.

My brother is so bound up in his murky types that he cannot ever seem to separate the priesthood from the church. He should never have put it in the church to begin with but once in he cannot seem to get out.

The evident fact of the believer/priest does not abrogate the church or her duties and responsibilities are plainly specified.

My brother says that the believer/priest would automatically have the authority to baptize, set the Lord's table, etc. IF HE WERE A PRIEST AFTER THE "ORDER OF AARON" THIS MIGHT BE TRUE BUT HE ISN'T.

The Church of our Lord has a unique ministry and duties that are clearly enumerated and clearly given to her and to no one else. No one can assume these duties through mission boards and other dark creations frequently try to. It isn't necessary to puff up the importance of the church by adding artificial trinkets to her as though she were a heathen christmas tree. She is sufficiently beautiful as she is. She is of paramount importance and this importance cannot be diminished or disannulled. She is a temple that is dissimilar from the tabernacle and temple in the Old Testament. One of the greatest differences is that she is not in an organized capacity 24 hours a day. She meets and then disperses while the temple in the Old Testament was attended and in operation every day. The author never mentions this in all his types. I wonder why?

Is there a temple that a New Testament priest can minister at in any hour of the day, any day of the year and offer up the spiritual sacrifices of a spiritual being unto God? Surely. The temple of the individual believer, which unlike the church is available for worship and devotion to God at all hours. Why else would Paul enjoin us to present our bodies to God a living sacrifice if our bodies did not have the capacity within them to receive sacrifices of devotion unto God. Did Paul mean that we should wait until Sunday or Wednesday night to perform this duty?

Let me repeat an earlier assertion because it is important. Does the fact (the established fact) of the priesthood of the believer nullify the church? It shouldn't be necessary to ask this but I ask it for clarity. Of course it doesn't. The ministry of the church is just as real and necessary as the ministry of the individual believer/priest.

Every believer should be a member of a Baptist church. He is limited in his abilities to worship God otherwise but he is not DEVOID of the ability to worship without church membership. He is still a spiritual son dwelling in a spiritual temple.

I must now say some additional words on the "Birthright" because much hangs on it and our brother makes much of it. If his view of the birthright can be sustained then much that is connected with it is valid. But if his concept of the "Birthright" falls then his tent falls with it.

The author takes the primogeniture law of the "Birthright" and applies it to the church. Under primogeniture it was the firstborn son who was the heir and so in the New Testament as well. Romans 8:16-17 says, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ: if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be glorified together." A similar reading in Galatians 4:4-7 says, "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son in your hearts crying, Abba, Father, Wherefore thou art no more a servant but a son; and if a son then an heir of God through Christ."

Through Christ and His birth right we are heirs and not just heirs but JOINT HEIRS. JOINT HEIRS. We need no readings of a testament by an attorney. We inherit (all God's sons) for we are heirs "of God through Christ." Read Hebrews 9:15 and I Peter 1:4-5 on this.

In his overriding passion to prove the priesthood of the church our brother has the "Birthright" going into the church instead of where it has always been . . . to sons of the family. God addresses His children under the aspect of sons and assures them of the inheritance in accord with primogeniture law. Ile also speaks of them in a metonymic aspect as sons (whether male or female) in reference to the priesthood. In Christ they have neither the aspect of bond nor free, Jew nor Greek, male nor female but are all one in Christ as Paul tells us in Galatians 3:28.

We do not inherit because of the church but because we are "in Christ" the first born son. We share His inheritance because of birth not church. Our brother says that we can lose our birthright and he would be right if it were "our" birthright. Thank God that it is not ours but it is Christ's. Being Christ's birthright it is secure from sin and void and loss. Our brother seems to make the acquiring of a birthright a matter of works. That comes fairly close to making the acquiring of salvation by works.

Can we lose the birthright as our brother says? No, it isn't ours to lose. We can lose our lives, our sanity, our rewards, our health, out testimonies or our fortunes but we cannot lose our inheritance or our "Birthright" for we have them "in Christ."

THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE DONE WELL TO HAVE STUDIED SOMETHING ABOUT THE BIRTHRIGHT BEFORE ENDEAVORING TO WRITE ABOUT IT. Ephesians 1:13-14 says, "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also after that ye believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession unto the praise of his glory." According to this reading our inheritance is as sure as our being sealed with the Spirit.

Why is it that God kills disobedient children as in I Corinthians 11? He kills them because He cannot disinherit them. They are sons and if sons then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs of Christ. The author has saints and churches forfeiting their birthright through sin and disobedience when they never had their own birthright to forfeit to begin with.

How many birthrights are there in any one family? One. How many in the family of God? One. In the family of God who has this one birthright? Christ, the firstborn son. How then can we be joint heirs? Because in the new birth we are One with Him. My brethren cannot distinguish between rewards and the birthright.

Our faithfulness does have everything to do with rewards but it has NOTHING to do with our inheritance as sons in the Birthright. Rewards are based on works while the birthright is by birth and grace. THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REWARDS AND AN INHERITANCE.

THE CHURCH DOES NOT HAVE A BIRTHRIGHT AND NEVER HAS HAD ONE. A bride doesn't have a birthright, she has a husband. The husband has the birthright and it is NEVER TRANSFERRED TO HIS WIFE . . NEVER.

Has Christ transferred His birthright? If so then He no longer has it and He no longer has the position of rank that goes with the birthright. Can you fragment a birthright? The author has done so but no one else has ever accomplished it. Has Christ sinned so as to forfeit His birthright? Has the Father removed the birthright from Him? If none of these things have happened then Christ still has His birthright. His church does not have it nor do His blood bought saints have it. They share in it because of their oneness with Christ.

Because our brother has grossly misunderstood and then misapplied the "Birthright" he has misapplied everything connected with it. Once on the wrong road he takes his entire cargo along with him.

When our brother deals with "The Blessing" it is like another rendering of "The Birthright" although it takes another chapter. He says that in Ephesians 1:3 when it says that Christ "bath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ" it means that we have to appropriate these blessings by our works. How in the world you can "hath" a blessing and then have to work for it I can't imagine nor does he clearly say. We do not work for Christ in order to be blessed, we work because we have been blessed already. It is His love that constrains us and nothing else. I don't preach for rewards, I preach for Christ. If there are rewards I will gladly receive them but I don't have an eye on them but on Christ.

Our brother has placed Christian service on a mercenary level by his "types." The service of a Christian is the only altruistic act on this selfish, greedy earth. Heaven does not fascinate me and neither do rewards, but Christ Jesus our Lord has an unceasing charm.

It is scarcely a wonder that our brother is confused about "The Blessing" because he likens Canaan to the Israelites to what our spiritual blessings are unto us. This is a bit too far even for the brethren. I don't know about them but my spiritual blessings are unalloyed and do not contain any Philistines, Hittites or Amorites. They are "spiritual blessings."

Each free born child of God is the temple of the Spirit of God and He has God's name. He can also bless in God's name.

When our brother speaks of "Laying on of Hands" he repeats much of what he said concerning "The Birthright" and "The Blessing" and as usual he injects Old Testament types and tries to make New Testament operations out of them.

It is true that laying on of hands in the Bible is considered a recognition of and/or an identification with a person or sacrifice. The Birthright was conveyed by laying on of hands in the Old Testament and in the New Testament ministries and deacons were ordained the same way, by laying on of hands. All this is true.

Yet, our brother errs when he likens New Testament baptism as the New Testament equivalent of laying on of hands. I do admit that hands are used in baptism, for I have yet to see anyone baptized by the use of feet, but does this mean that believer's baptism is the equivalent of laying on hands? Our brother never comes right out and says it but he hints around that it is.

Beyond types and shadows the single greatest distinctive between the priesthood of Aaron and that of our Lord, between Israel and the born again of God is that each born again child of God has the Spirit of God dwelling with him.

Several years ago I was in a minister's house in a state bordering Kentucky. I was ill with the flu and at the dinner table I thought the illness had affected my hearing because the brother said, "The Holy Spirit indwells the church but not each individual believer." I managed to mumble that if this were true then only Baptists would be resurrected because it says in Romans 8:11, "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." I waited for an answer. I have be waiting for more than five years. No answer to Romans 8:11 has ever come from anyone in the priesthood camp.

Does the author believe that only Baptists will be resurrected? If he truly believes that the Holy Spirit only indwells the church he does. Does he believe that only Baptists are saved? Apparently he does.

Our brother says that everything that was said or taught either by our Lord or His inspired writers or speakers was taught or spoken to people in church capacity. Was Pilate in church capacity? No? Well, I seem to remember that our Lord spoke some things to him. Was the mob in Acts 22 in church capacity? Paul had a few things to say to them. What about the "chief captain" in Acts 21? What about Felix, Festus and many others that Paul spoke to? Isn't the statement above incredible?

What about his saying that there is nothing in the Word of God that is not addressed to any but only for those in church capacity? I could be wrong, of course, but I seem to recollect that the prophets in the Old Testament had quite a bit that they addressed to heathen nations. Were the Egyptians or the Edomites in church capacity? Our brother says they were. This is the first time I ever heard of Baptist Egyptians.

On the subject of the anointing our brother says there are only two anointings: Christ at His baptism, and His church on the day of Pentecost. I hate to correct an elder but there are four anointings in the New Testament. Count them. . . . four. The two already mentioned, the anointing of the individual believer mentioned in I John 2:27 and the anointing that took place at Cornelius' house in Acts 10:44-46.

I wonder why our brother makes no mention of I John 2:27? Let me quote it and I think you'll see why, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." This is the anointing of the individual believer by the Holy Spirit for it could speak of nothing else. If anyone can find any mention of a church in the book of First John I will fly him to Miami and buy him a steak dinner at the most expensive restaurant on Miami Beach. This is an offer that will not be withdrawn. I challenge anyone, ANYONE, to find a church mentioned in First John.

Further on the anointing our brother says that God was the one who called the disciples Christians first at Antioch. Now I'm not as enlightened as our brother and I don't know who called them Christians, yet our brother, who has the makings of an intuitive genius says that God called them Christians. I wouldn't normally object to this except for the reason he gives for this. He says they were called Christians "i.e., the anointed ones" in order to identify them with the anointed church at Jerusalem. I confess that I had never heard this before in my life. Isn't this pushing the "anointing" to a rather curious extreme? If I called someone a Cockrellite, a Hobbsite or a Hiattite, would this identify them with the church these men are members of or with the man himself?

I must deal with the split resurrection of the saved that our brother presents toward the close of the book, not because it is germane to the priesthood but in order to demonstrate our brother's method of interpretation. Our brother places Baptists in one resurrection and the rest of the saved in another resurrection. He grossly misuses I Corinthians 15: 22-23 to do this. These verses speak of Christ's resurrection and when He comes again there will be the resurrection of "they that are Christ's at his coming." Not those who are Baptists but those who are "Christ's." Our brother takes the word "order" and runs wild with it.

He makes much of the "better resurrection" in Hebrews 11:35 and if I did not know that he was a Baptist minister of many years standing I would think that he had never opened the Bible before. In Hebrews 11:35 there is a direct comparison between those tortured souls who refused deliverance and those who had been raised to life again. Read it. The author takes the Scripture totally out of context and runs away with it to attempt to prove a split resurrection of the saved—with church members in one resurrection and the other saved in another. All of this just to prove a fictitious priesthood of the church. The "better resurrection" in this verse is better as it is compared to the restoration of human life on this earth. Personally, I do not envy Lazarus or others who were brought back to life. I prefer the "better resurrection."

EPILOGUE

 Well, enough said and perhaps more than enough. If I haven't shown the utter folly of the priesthood of the church, then extending this overview to more pages surely will never accomplish it. If my references were sometimes vague and difficult to understand, I repeat that I was not able to make exact quotation from the book on the priesthood. Please read this synopsis in this light. I still cannot understand our brother's refusal to allow quotations, but I must leave that between him and his God.

The days of mysticism and theological hocus pocus are quite thankful over for the children of God. We are not backwood heathens who fall down awestruck just because someone waves a banner with "Birthright" or "Anointing" on it. Those who have an affection for The Baptist Examiner have also an affection for "examination."

We are not impressed when philosophic hill tribes send down their missiles. We don't believe something because it has an attractive package or involved intestines. We believe simple truth presented without flourish or trumpets. Perhaps we are dull witted but we do not adopt new systems because they are attractively packaged. I have never known of an effective spy without a top secret clearance. I have never known of a con man without a believable cover story and I have never known of a false doctrine that was not attractively packaged. It is a common trick of the trade.

When I first read this book I read it in hope but I soon found myself in the dark, dank areas of mysticism and disease. I saw the Bible casually twisted in a far more grievous fashion than even some of our enemies do. I saw Jesus obscured by His church. I saw church salvation. I saw church resurrection. I saw every word in the Bible addressed to the church or those "in church capacity" and I saw every saint placed in the church. I saw the Holy Spirit restricted to the church and this is surely dangerous ground.

I haven't intended to harm my brethren. I have done unto them as I would hope a reviewer would do unto me. I have used satire but not poison. Good satire should be, "like a polished razor keen, cut with a touch that is scarcely felt or seen." I hope that I have wielded it deftly to examine without hurt. If I have been remiss and caused an undue pain I am sorry. No one is converted by ridicule and diatribe. You don't convert people with whips—you only scare them. We all have enough scars without adding more.

I have handled this subject as objectively as I know how in the light of Scripture. I have tried to be fair. Perhaps I have succeeded, perhaps not. The Lord shall judge. I have slanted nothing. I have twisted nothing. I have distorted nothing. I have commended where it was warranted and I hope that I have been civil. Where our brother's thoughts were credible, I have given credit. Where they were incredible I have chided. The Baptist Examiner typifies its name. It is an "examining" ministry. I have tried to honor this title by a scholarly examination.

I admit the possibility that I could be wrong but I believe that this entire doctrine of "the priesthood of the church" was created merely to establish some scholarly exclusivity above the common folks. I could be wrong and I hope that I am. I have the highest respect for my brethren among the "priesthood" and some of the best Bible scholars I know believe in some form of "the priesthood." I would hate to think of these fine men succumbing to that most ancient evil—scholarly pride. They are too valuable to be lost to such a doctrine and such a situation.

Mankind is constantly laboring under some sort of cosmic imperative that makes him try to do better than God has done. Let this be a valuable lesson to us all. If my good brethren can be caught up in such a dogma as "the priesthood" then NEXT YEAR IT MAY BE YOU OR I WHO ARE CHASING NEW DOCTRINES THROUGH THE SWAMPS WITH BUTTERFLY NETS. None of us are immune to stupidity so let's be patient with our brethren. Let my patience now explain that though I have used the word "heresy" during this paper I do not intend to imply the term "heretic." None of my brethren who believe in the priesthood of the church are heretics . . . they are merely wrong in my opinion.

At best this doctrine is fraught with very grave difficulties. Difficulties so grave as to be insurmountable. At its worst it is confusion and theological danger and heresy, in its entirety and in its several parts.

If our brother's book is the best presentation of the priesthood position, then nothing more needs to be said about it. I recommend that the book be read. I wish it a wide circulation. I cannot believe that anything on earth could go further to disproving the theory of the priesthood of the church than a studious reading of our brother's book. I would not recommend it to a babe of course but for anyone else it would be a valuable study. I have never before seen any book which proved so dramatically the very opposite of what it intended to prove.

May God bless you and may God especially bless my good brethren and especially the author of the book.

(The above 5 parts of this article appeared in the Baptist Examiner publications - May 5th, 12th, 19th. 26th and June 2nd of 1979)

See Also Sacerdotalism and the Baptists by Milburn Cockrell