Eight Sermons on the Priesthood, Altar, and Sacrifice

by Mayow Wynell Mayow

1 CORINTHIANS x. 18.
“Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?”

I resume the subject upon which I have spoken on two previous Sundays—the reality of the Christian priesthood, altar, and sacrifice.

I endeavoured to shew in the first of these discourses that it was no argument against the truth of the priesthood that they who hold it have “this treasure in earthen vessels,” that a priest is like and “of like passions” with others, nay, is “weak as another man.” In the second, I pointed out that sacrifice was an institution as old as the days of our first parents, and in all probability appointed directly by the Almighty upon man’s fall, with some revelation of its predictive significance; that certainly it met with His approval when duly and religiously performed; and that it was by faith that those who took part in it “obtained the witness that they were righteous:” [45] whence we were led to consider more particularly its relation to the sacrifice upon the Cross of “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world,” and how from the beginning it looked forward, in its inner meaning, with a preparing and expectant eye and heart, to that wonderful consummation. We saw, too, that thus among God’s own chosen people, by special and minute provision, this doctrine and usage of sacrifice were preserved even as long as the elder dispensation lasted; whilst, though in terrible and wicked perversion, both as to the object and the mode of worship, they yet prevailed universally throughout the heathen world. Admitting it to be conceivable that in the Almighty’s will it might be intended that sacrifice should altogether cease when once the great sacrifice was completed; that, although He had appointed foreshadowing and predictive rites of that wonderful event, He did not intend that there should be any reflective or commemorative sacrifice to carry us back to it, or to apply its virtue, or to plead its merits ever afresh before the throne of God; we yet saw great reason to think this to be highly unlikely, and reserved the point more particularly for further examination. What is the testimony which has been furnished to us upon it? You will remember that I proposed to consider this testimony under the three heads: first, what Holy Scripture tells us; secondly, what has been the understanding by the Church from the beginning of the declarations of Holy Writ; and thirdly, what is the mind of our own Church in this matter?

Before, however, coming to these particulars, let me premise that it can be but a brief summary of such evidences which it is possible to give here. The subject is so large, and the full testimony so extensive, that it would require volumes to go through it. Those who would study it in a more complete manner will find it elaborately discussed in the discourses on “The Government of Churches and on Religious Assemblies,” of Dr. Herbert Thorndike, Canon of Westminster, about the middle of the seventeenth century, (a very learned theologian); and in the three octavo volumes of “Treatises on the Christian Priesthood,” by Dr. Hickes, Dean of Worcester, some fifty years later; whilst there is a very thoughtful and condensed statement of the whole matter in a small book by the Rev. T. T. Carter, called “The Doctrine of the Priesthood.”

Let us now turn to our own enquiry, as some help (if it please God) to those who may not be so likely, possibly may not have leisure or opportunity, to consult larger works, but may yet have a godly anxiety amid the bold assertions, and I fear we must say, in no small measure, the irreverent scoffing of a free and licentious time, to learn the will of God herein, that they may neither think nor do anything but what is pleasing and acceptable in His sight.

Our question is, Has God willed, and has He revealed to us His will, that in His Church, since the death of His Blessed Son upon the cross, there shall be no priesthood, no altar, and no sacrifice? And first, “What saith the Scripture?” [48a] I must take but a few out of many passages.

1. We have, in our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, the following direction: “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” [48b] Now if this direction be intended to be a guide of conduct for Christian people in the Christian Church, can it be denied that our Lord speaks of an altar to be used, and an offering to be made thereon; and that, speaking to those who were constantly accustomed to altars and sacrifices, His words must have conveyed to them the meaning that an altar and a sacrifice would remain for them whilst they should be practising the precepts of His religion? If He did not intend so much by this precept, the question surely arises, How shall we, with any certainty, know what other portions of that or any of our Lord’s discourses were designed for the instruction merely of the Jews who were around Him, or should receive His teaching during the time that their covenant lasted, but became immediately inapplicable and void in and under the Christian dispensation? Will any say that the precepts concerning purity, meekness, government of the tongue, charity, are thus limited? as, “Whoso looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart;” or, “Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment;” or, again, “Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay;” or, once more, “Resist not evil; love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you.” [49] That these and other divine precepts of that same discourse were injunctions to bind the Jews, to whom primarily they were spoken, but require other proof or repetition before they can be conclusively accepted as designed for Christians would seem strange indeed. If no one will say so, surely we must confess to a strong presumption in favour of the doctrine of an altar and a sacrifice remaining in the Christian Church.

But perhaps it may be said, Not so: we accept those other precepts as belonging to the Christian Church, because they are simply moral precepts applying to the heart, but the former passage relates to a ceremonial usage of the Jewish polity, and may well be taken to be a mere adaptation of what was then in well-known use; to inculcate, not an act or mode of worship, but figuratively a frame of mind that would be required in Christians. So that, as the Jew would literally understand, he should go his way from the temple and the altar, and be reconciled to any one to whom he had done wrong, before he could there make his offering; so the Christian in all time, though having no altar to which to come, and no real offering or sacrifice in which to join, should yet learn to be in peace and charity with all men, before he should esteem himself fit to lift up his voice or heart in prayer to God; and that therefore our Lord’s words, spoken “while as the first tabernacle was yet standing,” [50] do not sufficiently prove any altar designed to exist in the Christian Church. Well, let us allow the utmost weight to such an argument, and grant that the words in and by themselves might possibly be so explained, and yet bear just a tolerable though not, I think, at all a likely interpretation in such sense; but then, let us yet turn and see whether the other and more natural meaning be not corroborated elsewhere, where this gloss will not avail. Remember the objection to the proof of a Christian altar from those words is, that they were spoken whilst the Jewish polity subsisted, and before the Christian Church was set up, and therefore that it is only (as is asserted) by a figure, suitable enough to Jewish ears, but not as really enunciating a truth or principle to endure in the Christian Church, that they were uttered. But shall we not find a witness in Holy Scripture to the existence of this altar in the new dispensation, which is free from this exception or construction? I turn to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and I find the Apostle writing, “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.” [51a] Was not this written to Christians? Does it not speak to them expressly of their altar at which they are to eat? Was it not set down for their guidance and instruction? Was it not written after the great sacrifice upon the altar of the cross had been made, and made once for all?

Was it not after the setting up of the Christian Church, and the establishment of Christian worship? Nay, is it not in an Epistle, the very whole drift and scope of which is to contrast the usages and provisions and teaching of the elder covenant with those of the new, and to shew the superiority in each respect of that which had been ordained, not by angels, but in the hand of the Son of God Himself. [51b] And can it therefore be that the inferior part or type in the one can lack the corresponding superior part, or antitype, in the other with which it is contrasted, and on which correspondency and contrast the whole argument depends? Will any one say, Yes, but still the Jewish temple had not then been destroyed; the Jews’ visible altar and worship still existed, and it is only by (again) an adaptation, as a mode of speech particularly intelligible to the Hebrews, and by a very natural economy, that such terms were employed. But granting that the date of the Epistle is, with all probability, rightly put some little time before the destruction of Jerusalem, yet does not the very turn both of the argument and of the expression of the Apostle shew that he is not making an application of a figure, but a declaration of a fact? Addressing Hebrews, but most evidently converted Hebrews, Christians, to keep them firm in the faith, and to enlighten them to the more full understanding in it, he presses on them this point, that they have an altar; and not only so, but one distinguished from the altar of the Jew; one at which “they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.” Take the whole passage together and see its force: “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the High Priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate.” Where evidently the type, the great day of atonement under the law, is contrasted with its antitype, the great sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. So far it might be perhaps thought that our altar is only the cross; but then he continues: “Let us go forth, therefore, unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach; for here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come. By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.” [53] Here it is evident another sacrifice is to be made, even the sacrifice of praise (which we must remember is the very phrase universally used in the ancient Church for the Holy Eucharist). Let us therefore (surely we are to understand) follow after Christ, being content to bear His reproach even as we offer to Him, ourselves, our souls and bodies, in and by the sacrifice of His own appointing, the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the supper of the Lord, at the enduring Christian altar as well as table.

But perhaps some may still say, We are not convinced. The allusion to an altar here may yet be figurative, or only adapting language to the mind of the Jew, “while as the first tabernacle was yet standing;” and the sacrifice of praise need not necessarily mean the Holy Eucharist, or, if it do, may point to no altar or sacrifice by means of a priest, but merely denote the lifting the heart in sincerity to God.