Eight Sermons on the Priesthood, Altar, and SacrificeMayow, Mayow Wynell
Religion
Eight Sermons on the Priesthood, Altar, and Sacrifice
Mayow, Mayow Wynell
Catholic Church -- Doctrines
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.
Now, although putting the whole argument together and reading the passage
by the light which the continuous belief of the Church throws upon it (as
we shall see presently), nothing, I think, can be more unlikely or
untenable than such an interpretation, still, for the moment, let us
allow it to throw a doubt upon the sense of the passage. Let us, then,
turn to yet another place, and see if the witness of the Apostle is not
unmistakeable as to the doctrine of which we speak.
Take that passage in the first Epistle to the Corinthians in which our
text occurs, and see if it be possible to understand it in any sense but
in that which speaks of a present altar and a continually recurring
sacrifice, in which Christians have an interest and bear a part: “Are not
they which eat of the sacrifice,” says he, “partakers of the altar?” {54}
and this especially in contrast as to the conduct of those engaged in
idol worship, and those in Christian worship. As truly, then, as the
idolater partook of his altar (though his idol be nothing), so, only much
more, does the Christian of the Christian altar. And this cannot be the
one offering on the cross alone, however deriving all its virtue and
power from it, because in that case the Christian could not be said to
eat of the sacrifice in any continuous or recurring act. The sacrifice
would be wholly past, and not present as the idol sacrifices were, and so
there would be no true parallel between the two things brought into
comparison. Mark the progress of the argument: “What say I then? that
the idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to the idol
is anything? But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice,
they sacrifice to devils and not to God;” that is, under the symbol of
the senseless wood or stone there lurked an acknowledgment of demoniac
power, so that, in fact, in the heart of those worshippers there was a
homage paid to Satan and his angels, and this was something wickedly
real, even though the idol was nothing. For he immediately adds what
shews that this worship was not without its effect, an effect impressing
a character on those who shared in it; for he says, “And I would not that
ye should have fellowship with devils,” and why? because thus they would
lose all fellowship with God. “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and
the cup of devils. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of
the table of devils.” {55} Let it make no difficulty that it is called a
table here, as an altar above. It is both, just as the other, the
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account