Church Ministry in Kensington: A Recent Case of Hieratical Teaching Scripturally Considered

In Short

This polemical work serves as a formal, point-by-point critique of the "sacerdotal" movement within the 19th-century Church of England. The author, a parish curate, engages in a rigorous debate with a contemporary clergyman who had published sermons arguing that the Eucharist is a literal sacrifice performed by a mediating priesthood at a physical altar. By dissecting his opponent’s use of scripture and church history, the author defends a Protestant, Bible-centered view of ministry, ultimately arguing that the work of salvation was completed once for all at the cross.

The Story

The discourse begins as an epistolary challenge directed at the Reverend Mayow Wynell Mayow. The author acknowledges receipt of Mayow’s recently published Eight Sermons on the Priesthood, Altar, and Sacrifice, signaling the start of a deep, scholarly engagement with the claims of the Anglo-Catholic movement. The narrative arc moves through three primary battlegrounds: the nature of the Christian sacrifice, the definition of an altar, and the identity of the priest.

In the first phase, the author dismantles the idea that the Eucharist constitutes a "propitiatory" or "unbloody" sacrifice. He cites the Apostle Paul to demonstrate that the Great Sacrifice was finalized at Calvary, arguing that to suggest Christ is offered daily by human hands is to misunderstand the finished nature of the Gospel. He meticulously critiques his opponent’s use of ancient liturgical texts, pointing out that even the early Church fathers did not speak of a Christian "priest" or "sacrifice" in the way Mayow suggests. He argues that Mayow’s interpretation relies on human invention and later ecclesiastical developments rather than the bedrock of the apostolic record.

The argument then shifts to the physical "altar." The author examines the specific biblical references Mayow uses to justify the existence of church altars. He carefully deconstructs these, explaining that when the New Testament speaks of "eating of the altar," it refers to the Jewish system, not the Christian table. He posits that the early Christians were actually taunted by pagans for having no altars at all, and that the modern focus on a ritual altar confuses symbolic language with reality.

Finally, the discussion turns to the role of the priest. The author challenges the notion that ordained ministers possess a unique, mediatorial power to absolve sins or perform a "sacrificial" ministry. He argues that the "power of the keys" is a duty of the entire "royal priesthood" of believers. He contends that the ordination of a minister is a divine authorization to preach and reconcile, not an elevation to a sacrificial role. The author concludes by rejecting the allure of "theological language" that separates the cleric from the congregation. He brings the argument to a close by affirming that the only true Priest is Jesus, and that the only remaining sacrifice is the "fruit of our lips" in praise and thanksgiving. The resolution is a call for a return to the simplicity of Scripture, stripping away the poetic and allegorical layers that he believes have obscured the core of the Christian faith.

How It Unfolds

The opening challenge The author sets the stage by addressing his opponent’s sermons directly, contrasting his own commitment to the Bible with Mayow’s reliance on "earthen vessels" of tradition. He establishes his interpretive method, asserting that the sacrificial language of the Old Testament does not translate into a ritualistic practice for modern clergy.

Dismantling the sacrifice The author systematically rejects the concept of a Eucharistic sin-offering, utilizing extensive cross-references from the Epistles. He argues that by trying to make the Eucharist a "propitiatory" act, his opponent creates a "sacrificial solecism" that contradicts the fundamental message of grace through faith alone.

The altar and the table Moving to the physical environment of the church, the author provides a historical and linguistic analysis of the word "altar." He demonstrates that the early church viewed their holy place as a table for fellowship, and he mocks the logic of those who claim a literal altar is necessary for Christian worship.

The priesthood of all The argument culminates in a redefinition of the ministerial office. The author insists that priests are not mediators who sacrifice Christ, but rather messengers of the Word, and that forgiveness is a function of the entire body of Christ.

The final synthesis In the concluding pages, the author summarizes his rejection of the "high" view of the ministry. He invites his opponent to look past the "frail foundations" of human tradition to the singular, finished work of the cross, leaving the reader with a firm, scriptural finality.

The People

The book centers on two conflicting visions of the Church, embodied by the author and his interlocutor, Mayow Wynell Mayow. Mayow represents the "high" ecclesiastical movement of the mid-19th century, eager to recover a sense of mystery, ritual, and priestly authority by connecting the Church of England to ancient liturgical practices. He is portrayed as a man who values the "consent of the Church from the beginning" and who believes that a robust, sacrificial theology is essential for the spiritual health of the people.

The author, by contrast, is a firm adherent to the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. He wants to protect the laity from what he views as dangerous clerical interference. He is meticulous, occasionally sharp-tongued, and deeply suspicious of any theology that cannot be proven by a plain reading of the New Testament. He views himself as a guardian of the "lawful" priest—a man who serves the people through the ministry of the Word rather than through ritualistic intercession. By the end, the two figures remain at an impasse; the author has not converted Mayow, but he has constructed a formidable intellectual fortress for those who wish to maintain a "low-church" interpretation of the liturgy.

In Its Own Voice

The author highlights the necessity of faith, rather than ritual, as the true vehicle for God's mercy:

"He reserves this pre-eminence to faith (Gal. v. 5); and faith is actually represented as the sacrificing priest of the spiritual house by Romanus the martyr of Antioch, about the beginning of the fourth century, in his dying address, which Prudentius versifies."

The author emphasizes that the sacrificial language used by his opponent is unsupported by the earliest records of the faith:

"Yet no such word as 'sacrifice' is ever mentioned, in a Eucharistic sense, in any of the Apostolical Fathers; and an interpolation in S. Ignatius shows how much this deficiency of evidence was afterwards felt."

What It's Really About

The central concern is the battle for the identity of the Church of England in the wake of the Oxford Movement. The book interrogates whether the Church is a priestly institution focused on a literal, re-presented sacrifice, or a community of believers defined by the preaching of the Word. Underlying this is a deeper epistemological question: how should a Christian decide between competing claims of authority? The author argues that when "theological language" fails—as it does whenever one tries to define the "Power of the Keys" or the "causes of salvation"—one must retreat to the foundational, unambiguous texts of the New Testament. It is a treatise on the dangers of adding human structures to a divine foundation, questioning whether "high" ritual is a means of grace or a barrier to it.

Why Read It Today

Readers with an interest in 19th-century history, ecclesiology, or the internal conflicts of the Church of England will find this a fascinating, if dense, primary source. The prose is remarkably precise for its era, though the author assumes a high level of familiarity with Greek, Latin, and liturgical scholarship. It is not an easy read; the author expects his audience to follow him through complex, granular debates about the "rubrics of 1662" and the translation of specific Greek terms.

However, the experience of reading it feels like an invitation into a high-stakes Victorian intellectual salon. There is a palpable tension between the warmth of the author’s spiritual devotion and the cold, surgical precision with which he dismantles his opponent’s arguments. What stays with the reader is the author’s profound insistence on the clarity of the Gospel. Even for those who do not share his particular theological leanings, his defense of the "simplicity of the Scriptures" against the "heaping of causes" is a compelling reminder of the perennial struggle between tradition and textual fidelity. It serves as a stark, honest example of how deeply held convictions were debated before the age of rapid media, when a single argument could circulate for months, and a rebuttal could be as long and deliberate as the original thesis.