Eight Sermons on the Priesthood, Altar, and Sacrifice

by Mayow Wynell Mayow

We cannot here go into a minute history of all which was done at the Reformation in this regard. But I think we may, within reasonable compass, arrive at a satisfactory general conclusion. If we compare our Church’s Eucharistic Office with the ancient liturgies which have been preserved to us, we may see, I might almost say, at a glance, whether in prayer, in praise, in oblation, in general design and structure, we follow in their steps, or make “some new thing.” It cannot be disputed that in design and structure those liturgies all proclaim the doctrine of priest, sacrifice, and altar. This is interwoven with their whole system. It was the one understanding of Christians in those days as to what their liturgies contained. If, then, we find that the Church of England follows carefully in their steps, and maintains in her Eucharistic Office the whole substance of those liturgies,—at any rate, all the main points in which they agree together, even though it be with some differences of arrangement, such as might naturally be expected,—surely we prove our point, and cannot doubt that our Reformers had no design to break away from the ancient faith, though they would cast off Roman error and Roman usurpation, and therefore that our Church not only does not condemn, but adopts and continues, (as in truth she never dreamed of any other thing,) the doctrine of the Church Universal in this matter.

Take, then, the following short account of the structure, form, and usage of the ancient liturgies. I extract it from Mr. Carter’s book, as I know of no better way to place it before you:—“The following brief digest,” he says, “may give some idea of this system of devotion into which the mind of Christendom was habitually casting itself in its communion with God. It will be readily seen how the outline corresponds with our own Eucharistic Office. One or more collects; lessons from Holy Scripture; a sermon, sometimes preceded by a hymn or anthem; prayers for the catechumens, penitents, and others, who, with a benediction, were then dismissed; the creed, the offertory, with the oblations of bread and wine” (observe, first offered by being placed upon the altar); then, “thanksgivings and intercessions, with a commemoration of the dead in Christ. Then, the more mystical portion of the Liturgy commenced, and in all cases with the very same words, Sursum corda, (‘Lift up your hearts’); a thanksgiving, closing with the Ter sanctus, (‘holy, holy, holy’); intercessory prayers; consecration of the elements, with the repetition of our Lord’s words of institution; a second oblation of the now consecrated elements, (this was not always expressed in words,—sometimes silently, and in act only); an invocation of the Holy Ghost. This is not found in the Roman nor in the Gallican Liturgies;”—(so, observe, we do not forsake the doctrine of the sacrifice if we have it not, for no one will suspect the Roman Church, which was equally without it, of denying or disparaging that doctrine;)—then, “intercessory prayers for the whole Church, the dead as well as the living;”—(this, however, would be praying only for the dead in Christ, for none other would be considered as part of the Church after the time of probation is over: though in this world, and in the Church on earth, the good and evil, the wheat and tares grow together, it is not so in the Church beyond the grave:)—“the Lord’s Prayer; a benediction; administration or communion; thanksgiving; Gloria in excelsis; final benediction.” [101]

Now will any one take this account of the liturgies and usage of the ancient Church, which on all hands confessedly is admitted to have held the doctrine for which we contend, and then, comparing these with the Eucharistic Service of our own Church, doubt for a moment that the Church of England at the Reformation intended to preserve, and did preserve, the ancient form and practice, and therefore the ancient faith, in this matter? [102]

The Articles and Catechism of our Church are perfectly in accordance with this conclusion. Although the former, as we well know, were drawn up rather to guard against current errors of that day than to state doctrine upon points not brought into controversy, [103] they indirectly confirm what has been said. For instance, the Twenty-fifth Article, guarding against the notion of a gross carnal presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, expressed by the term ‘transubstantiation,’ might not be called upon, within its proper scope, to say anything in the way of dogma asserting the doctrine of sacrifice; but yet we find in it the statement that sacraments “be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace,”—that is, signs effecting what they signify, and therefore, in the case of the Holy Communion, effecting or procuring for sinners pardon through Christ’s body broken and blood shed, even as there, “as often as we eat that bread and drink that cup we do shew the Lord’s death till He come,” [104] all which is in perfect accordance and harmony with the doctrine of a true propitiatory commemorative sacrifice therein offered up to God.

One point further in relation to the Articles I will notice, lest I seem to overlook an objection. It is sometimes said, If the doctrine of a true and propitiatory sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist be admitted, there is a contradiction to the Thirty-first Article, which tells us that “the sacrifices of masses, in which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” It is assumed that any doctrine of a real and true sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist must come under this condemnation, and so it is sometimes thought that the whole question is thus decided. But, not to notice other points not without importance, but which we can hardly spare time to go into now, one thing surely is evident,—that the whole Article must be read together if we would rightly understand it. It is: “The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” Now it is plain that the contrast here is between the one satisfaction for sin made by agony and blood upon the cross, and any supposed repetition of that painful and bloody sacrifice. “There is none other but that alone;” wherefore, for which reason, such attempts at sacrifice as would repeat it, or such teaching as would imply that Christ repeats it and suffers again, “are blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” If, then, in anything we say there were a doctrine of its repetition, if we did not absolutely and entirely disclaim (as we all along have done) any such attempt and any such view of the sacrifice of the Christian altar, there would be a condemnation by the Article of our teaching. But certainly neither its terms nor its scope deal with any view of a merely unbloody commemorative sacrifice, appointed to be continually made in the Church of God so long as the world lasteth, by which the sacrifice upon the cross is never supposed to be repeated, but its sole merits applied to the believing and obedient heart, and the prevailing pleading and intercession of the Son of God presenting our prayers and praises, our penitence and offerings, before the throne of the heavenly grace are secured, and He Himself, our Advocate with the Father, is our propitiation. This no more interferes with the one “full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, once offered” upon the cross, than His own continued intercession at the right hand of God (and certainly “He ever liveth to make intercession for us,”) [106] interferes with, or is inconsistent with, the same.

So much I have thought it well to say on the Thirty-first Article, because it is sometimes misunderstood and misapplied.

Next, I would say just a word as to the teaching of the Church Catechism, which it would not be right to pass over. I think it throws a further light upon the doctrine of the sacrifice and the altar, for it not only tells us that “the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper,” (that is, the baptized, Christian people, for so the word is always used in strict theological language,) and therefore certainly that there is a real presence of His Body and Blood; but it also says that that Holy Sacrament was ordained “for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby,”—where, as in the Communion Office itself, the term ‘remembrance’ is also to be understood in its complete theological sense as the memorial, the continual memorial before God, which by the offering up of the sacrifice is made in the Holy Eucharist; all which is strictly accordant with the doctrine of the primitive Church and the ancient liturgies; for, to sum up with the words of the learned Mede, “They (the ancient Fathers) believed that our blessed Lord ordained the Sacrament of His Body and Blood as a rite to bless and invocate His Father by, instead of the manifold and bloody sacrifices of the Law, . . . the mystery of which rite they took to be this, that as Christ, by presenting His death and satisfaction to His Father, continually intercedes for us in heaven, so the Church semblably (i.e. in a like manner) approaches the throne of grace by representing Christ unto His Father in those holy mysteries of His death and passion.” [107]

If further proof still be required of our Church’s mind from the Reformation downward, let it be noted how often this doctrine has been assailed, and yet how, on every occasion, the Church has refused to depart from the ancient rule and faith. As one instance, take the fact, that at the last revision in 1662, when the real meaning of the Puritan objections was well and fully understood, and when the demand was absolutely made by their leaders, both that the absolution by the priest should plainly be made only declaratory, and that the word ‘priest’ should be wholly omitted and ‘minister’ substituted, the Church refused both these demands: the bishops replying to the first, that the words as standing in the Visitation Service were far nearer to those of Christ Himself in the commission given, as these were, not, whose soever sins ye declare to be remitted, but, “whose soever sins ye remit,” and to the second, “It is not reasonable that the word ‘minister’ should be only used in the liturgy; for since some parts of the liturgy may be performed by a deacon, others by none under the order of a priest, viz. absolution and consecration, it is fit that some such word as ‘priest’ should be used for these offices, and not ‘minister,’ which signifies at large every one that ministers in that holy office, of what order soever he be;” [108] whilst yet again, it has been well noted, that the care of the Church was increased in this last revision to preserve the distinction and the doctrine dependent upon the word ‘priest,’ now that the objections to it were the better understood. For it has been pointed out that the word ‘priest’ occurs ninety times in the first book of King Edward the Sixth; fifty-five times in the second book, when the Puritan influence of the foreign reformers obtained its height; whilst in our present Prayer-book it occurs eighty-eight times: and an examination in detail would shew that this restoration was made on principle, and that wherever the term ‘priest’ is employed, more or less of the sacerdotal, or strictly priestly character and authority is implied; whilst where the term ‘minister’ is used, it is either as to simply a ministerial, as distinguished from a sacerdotal act, or the meaning of the term is determined by the previous use of the word ‘priest.’ [109] So that as to this whole ministration, we may well adopt the weighty and persuasive language of Dr. Hickes, where, summing up a detailed argument against Cudworth, who had invented the theory that the Holy Eucharist was only a feast upon a sacrifice, and not a sacrifice itself, he says: “I have said all this in defence of the old, against the Doctor’s new notion of the Holy Eucharist, much more out of love to that old truth than to prove Christian ministers to be proper priests. For, it will follow even from this,” (that is, from Cudworth’s own view,) “that they must be proper priests, because, as none but a priest can offer a sacrifice, so none but a priest can preside and minister in such a sacrificial feast as he allows the Holy Sacrament to be. Who but a priest can receive the elements from the people, set them upon the holy table, and offer up to God such solemn prayers, praises, and thanksgivings for the congregation, and make such solemn intercessions for them as are now, and ever were, offered and made in this Holy Sacrament? Who but a priest can consecrate the elements and make them the mystical Body and Blood of Christ? Who but a priest can stand in God’s stead at His table, and in His Name receive His guests? Who but a priest hath power to break the Bread, and bless the Cup, and make a solemn memorial before God of His Son’s sufferings, and then deliver His sacramental Body and Blood to the faithful communicants, as tokens of His meritorious sufferings, and pledges of their salvation? A man authorized thus to act ‘for men in things pertaining to God,’ and for God in things pertaining to men, must needs be a priest; and such holy ministrations must needs be sacerdotal, whether the holy table be an altar, or the Sacrament a sacrifice or not.” [110]

To what conclusion, then, can we come but to that of the learned Archbishop Bramhall? “He who saith, Take thou authority to exercise the office of a priest in the Church of God (as the Protestant consecrators do), doth intend all things requisite to the priestly function, and, among the rest, to offer a representative sacrifice, to commemorate and apply the sacrifice which Christ made upon the Cross:”[111a]—or to the brief but weighty saying of St. Jerome? “Ecclesia non est, quæ non habet Sacerdotes.” [111b]

Once more, brethren, we must pause, and as we do so, let us pray to Him from whom “cometh down every good and every perfect gift,” [111c] that He may give us His grace more and more to realize, and more and more to thank Him for the great privileges which He has vouchsafed to us in His “holy Catholic Church.” “We have an altar” to which we may come, the same blessed feast, of which we may partake, the same blessed sacrifice, in which we may join, which has ever been in His Church from the beginning. As the Israelites were taught to remember, as to their land flowing with milk and honey, that they “gat it not in possession through their own sword, neither was it their own arm that helped them;” [111d] Oh, so let us ever say with heart and voice, “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy Name give the praise, for Thy loving mercy, and for Thy truth’s sake.” [111e]