[Page 324 bottom]
We proceed from the Church to the sacraments. But since the sacraments are means of grace, we must first inquire what grace is.
[Page 325]
It is in vain to give teaching about the sacraments to those who do not feel their need of grace. For this reason much teaching about the sacraments is wasted.
In the New Testament grace (PVD4H) is the favor which God shows to man. Thus St. Paul writes, "By grace ye are saved" (Eph. 2:8) that is, by God,s favor or kindness.
Later theologians have often thought of grace as a kind of substance and have argued about different kinds of grace as a substance. But it is not a substance, and we ought not to think or speak of it as one. Grace is the touch of the Holy Ghost, His power working in us. We cannot distinguish between the Holy Ghost and His gift of grace. When Newman calls "God,s presence and His very self... a higher gift than grace",1 he is making a distinction to which the New Testament use of the word does not allow us to assent.
We need grace for every thought and word and deed. We can do nothing good without it. Our will must cooperate with God,s grace, but the cooperation of our will is itself brought about by grace. Actual grace is distinguished from habitual grace. They are not different kinds of grace but different ways of receiving it.
Actual grace is the power given for a special crisis or moment.
Habitual grace is the power received by us unconsciously and continuously in consequence of our baptism, confirmation, and other sacraments. Both are given to us in answer to prayer.
The medieval divines known as the Schoolmen distinguished Prevenient, Concomitant, and Subsequent Grace. They are not different kinds of grace but different times when it is received. Prevenient grace enables us to will to do something. Concomitant grace enables us to do it. Subsequent grace is the result of our doing it.
Grace is not irresistible as the Calvinists held. We are free to cooperate with it or to reject it.
Habitual grace has for its purpose the sanctification (making holy) of the soul. After the act of justification, or reconciliation with God,
1
"Dream of Gerontius". English Hymnal, 471; Hymns A. And M., 172.
[Page 326]
the process of sanctification is required. (This is ignored by those who believe in "sudden conversion". Even in real cases of sudden conversion such as those of St. Paul and St. Augustine, sanctification is needed. The complete conversion in a moment of Saul Kane, in Mr. Masefield,s Everlasting Mercy, is not in accordance with God,s ordinary way of dealing with men.)
Sanctification is only possible by means of habitual grace. The converted man must acquire the use of the sacramental life. Otherwise his conversion will probably be a failure. For the method of habitual grace is ordinarily the use of the sacraments which God has given us for that purpose.
Teaching about grace must come before teaching about the sacraments. When those who receive the sacraments do not recognize their own need of God,s grace, the sacraments mean to them no more than magical ceremonies. For instance, many parents bring their children to be baptized because it is a custom which they think it would be "unlucky" to omit, and not because they understand what baptism is or recognize that to have their children baptized lays upon themselves the responsibility for bringing them up as members of Christ,s Church.
Popular religion in England is largely Pelagian, and Pelagians do not believe in the need for grace. The sense of sin was never strong among the English, and has been very much weakened by various modern influences. Many people in our parishes, even among regular churchgoers, have little or no sense of sin. This is why the practice of self-examination and confession is so important. One of the causes of our national Pelagianism is our intense individualism. The ideal of relying entirely on oneself is widely held, as is shown by the popularity of Kipling,s If. The Christian ideal, on the contrary, is expressed in the words of St. Paul: "I can do all things in Him that strengtheneth me" (Phil. 4:13).
Among religious people we sometimes find the idea, once very popular, that the man who is converted is perfect and therefore needs no further grace. Those who have felt a revolutionary change in their lives through conversion are specially prone to this temptation. There is a story that a man whom Father Stanton had converted from drunkenness became so conceited that Father Stanton, after startling him with the order "Go and get drunk!", had to tell him that pride was a worse sin than drunkenness and that conversion
[Page 327]
from drunkenness was in vain if it led him to trust in himself and not in God.
Grace then is absolutely necessary to the spiritual life. It is dispensed through the Church which is the steward of God for this purpose (I Cor. 4:1). God the Holy Ghost "sanctifies the elect people of God"1 that is, the baptized members of the Church. This is one reason why membership in the Church is necessary to a normal Christian life. The Holy Ghost works by means of the sacraments which are only found within the Church and can be given only to members of the Church. No one who has not been baptized can receive any other sacrament. The sacraments are not the only means of grace, but they are necessary.
Non-sacramental grace is given to those who are separated from the Church as well as to her faithful members. God is not bound by His sacraments but bestows His favor upon all. This does not excuse anyone from the duty of receiving the sacraments if it is possible for him to do so. The Israelites lived on manna in the wilderness; but when they reached cultivated land, they were expected to live by tilling it (Joshua 5:12).
The sacraments are necessary because they are God,s appointed means of grace. He can give us His grace without them, but He will not if we refuse to use them. "By grace ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).
But it is very commonly held that the religious man is the man who does something, that he is saved not only by God,s gift of grace but by his own works.
It is true that faith must produce good works. Otherwise it is not real faith. As St. James tells us, faith without works is dead (2:25). But it is not the works that save us but the grace which alone enables us to do them, the grace which we owe to our Lord,s death and resurrection. Good works can only be the result of a living faith due to God,s favor or grace. The Thirteenth Article declares that "works done before justification" (for instance, a gift to a hospital by a non-Christian) "have the nature of sin". The clergy are not committed to every particular statement in the Articles. But we must insist that no one, baptized or unbaptized, can do anything good without Divine grace whether he is conscious of it or not.
Therefore no good works can "merit" anything. We cannot establish a claim on God. "When you have done all, say, we are unprofitable servants" (St. Luke 17:10).
The Romanist doctrine of "works of supererogation", the theory
1
Church Catechism.
[Page 328]
that sins have to be balanced against merits, which runs through popular Romanism everywhere and is deeply rooted in the financial interests of the Roman Communion, has already been discussed (see p. 200, 439). But the popular modern notion that a "good-living man" deserves Heaven is more dangerous still. Nobody can deserve Heaven or any reward from God. Whatever rewards God gives us come from His free grace.
As we have seen (p. 2), we live in two worlds, the spiritual world and the material world, closely connected with each other and influencing each other at every point. Both are in themselves good because they were created by God, but the spiritual world possesses a higher kind of goodness than the material world. Just because it possesses a higher kind of goodness, it can be more deeply perverted by being used to hinder God,s purpose. A man and a lump of iron can be used for evil as well as for good, but the perversion of the man is the perversion of an immortal spirit made in the likeness of God. The perversion of the iron, which cannot take place except by means of some perverted will, does not affect its nature but merely uses it for an evil purpose.
The material world is not illusion as some mystics and idealist philosophers say, nor is it evil as the Gnostics and Manicheans held.
Since material things are created by God, they ought to be used for His glory. And since man is partly material, he must approach God by material means. His worship cannot be purely spiritual. He must worship with the body as well as with the spirit.
The simplest way in which man approaches God is by prayer in which body, soul, and spirit are brought into contact with the Divine will. Christian prayer must always be "through Jesus Christ" unless directly addressed to Him. The discussion of prayer belongs to Ascetic rather than to Dogmatic Theology.
[Page 329]
The use of material things for the worship of God, such as stone and glass, fire and incense, bread and wine, water and oil, is supported both by revelation and by reason. The Puritans who held that worship must be as bare and plain as possible were unconsciously tending towards the idea that all that was material was evil. Some inconsistently use music but reject the use of lights and incense as if the ears were more spiritual than the eyes and the nose! It agrees with the nature of man that God should approach us by means of sacraments by water, bread, wine, and the laying on of hands, and that we should approach Him with every kind of material beauty both visible and audible with lights, incense, vestments, and music.
But this kind of worship has its dangers. What is best is always liable to greater dangers than what is not so good. The more beautiful and more elaborate our worship becomes, the greater is the danger of formalism. No worship indeed is free from this danger. The Puritan may be as superstitious in his use of the Bible as any ceremonialist in his use of ornaments; but if our worship is elaborate and requires a great deal of time and attention to be given to its performance, the spirit, without which all ceremonies are useless, may be neglected. Therefore there must be in all Christian worship an element of puritanism. The true puritan does not despise or reject the use of material beauty in worship, but he uses it with restraint. The Cistercians were the great puritans in the medieval Church.1
The supreme sacrament, the supreme way in which God has approached man by means of matter, is the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is both God and man as we are both spiritual and material. The Athanasian Creed says, "As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ". All sacraments are like the Incarnation in this: the outward sign conceals and yet reveals the inward grace, as our Lord,s Manhood, when He was on earth, both concealed and revealed His Godhead.
1
There is for some people a psychological connection between elaborate religious ceremonial and sensual passion against which the ceremonialist must be on his guard.
[Page 330]
There is in nature a foreshadowing of the sacramental system of the Church. Nature is in a sense sacramental, and the invisible spiritual world is concealed and revealed in the visible material world to those who are able to see it (Rom. 1:20).1
There is a kind of sacramentalism in human association. The shaking of hands, the kiss, the common meal are symbols of friendship and of love, and also promote them. They are outward visible signs of an inward spiritual grace.
But there are also sacraments which belong to Divine revelation, outward signs by means of which God has promised that He will bestow His favor and His power. Their basis is the promise of God. For this reason they differ from sacraments whose basis is only human experience such as the shaking of hands.
God,s promise is revealed. For every sacrament we must have evidence from Holy Scripture.
The sacraments are sometimes confused with magical rites, but there are two fundamental differences.
The effect of the sacraments is due entirely to the gift of God. But those who believe in magic believe that it is independent of the Divine will. Some even think that by using certain formulas and certain ceremonies they can make the gods obey them.
The effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral condition of those who receive them. Without repentance and faith they effect no inward change. But magical rites are believed to act like laws of nature. A man who falls into the fire will burn whether he is good or bad, so it is believed that to stick pins into a wax image of a person will cause him pain whether he deserves it or not. But to receive a sacrament has no effect upon the soul (though it may have an effect on the outward status of the person) unless he is made fit to receive it by repentance and faith.
It is possible to treat the sacraments as if they were magical, and this danger is always present. But if they are properly understood, they are entirely different in their nature from magical rites.
1
See Keble,s poem for Septuagesima in The Christian Year: "There is a book, who runs may read". (Hymns A. and M., 168; English Hymnal, 497.)
[Page 331]
A sacrament is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us" (Church Catechism). The two greater sacraments were "ordained by Christ Himself". The others, though they have not any visible sign which we can be sure was appointed by Christ, are guaranteed by the teaching and practice of the Apostles.
Sacraments have four purposes. The first is to be "badges or tokens of Christian men,s profession" (Article 25) as was taught even by Zwingli who rejected the other purposes of the sacraments. A man declares publicly that he intends to follow Christ when he receives Baptism, Confirmation, or Communion.
But this, though often of great importance, is the least of the reasons for which sacraments were instituted. There are also proofs to us that God intends to bestow His grace of favor upon us. This appears to have been the value of the sacraments in the eyes of Calvin; and so far as it goes, it is true.
But they are much more than this. They are means by which the power of God is conveyed to us, effectual signs of grace (efficacia signa gratiae), as Articles 25 calls them, without which signs grace would not be conveyed unless by some special Divine intervention. We cannot, for instance, obtain the benefits of baptism without baptism, where baptism is within our reach; though where it is not within our reach, it is probable that God gives what is needed in some other way.
Last, the sacraments are pledges to us that we receive the grace of God. They free us from the peril of the doctrine of assurance, from relying on our own feelings. A man may feel no special change after his Communion, but he knows that he has received the Body and Blood of Christ. He relies not on his own feelings but on the promise of God.
The Church Catechism refers to the last two purposes when it says that a sacrament is a means whereby we receive the inward spiritual grace and a pledge to assure us thereof.
[Page 332]
The sacraments are functions of the Church. They are bestowed only within the Church on members of the Church. Outside the Church in the widest sense of the word, there are no sacraments (that is, no sacraments of this kind, for as we have seen, there are natural sacraments which are to be distinguished from the revealed sacraments).
Down to the third century the principle that no sacraments outside the Church were recognized was observed strictly. Those who had been baptized by heretics were always baptized again on submitting to the Church. Most heretics were then persons who denied the most fundamental Christian doctrines, such as Gnostics and Docetists who denied the Incarnation.
The Eastern churches still formally regard heretical baptism and other sacraments as null and void. This rigidity is modified by the practice of "economy" which will be discussed later (p. 337).
In the West St. Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, about 250 admitted heretics into the Church without another baptism. St. Cyprian of Carthage vigorously opposed this practice. But the Roman practice was sanctioned by the Council of Arles, 314, after which it became universally accepted in the West (except by the Donatist schismatics). A century later St. Augustine of Hippo, in order to bring the Donatists back to the Church, conceded to them that their clergy should be accepted without a fresh ordination (the Donatists were orthodox in doctrine and differed from the Church only on points of discipline). From that time it has been the general practice in Western Christendom to recognize ordination as well as baptism given outside the Church if given according to the rules of the Church. It is not the baptized or ordained status of those who remain outside the Church that is recognized; but when they become reconciled with the Church, they need not be baptized or ordained. From this it is a short step to say that even while they remain outside the communion of the Church, they are in a sense members of the Church, baptized or ordained. But it is a step, and the two positions must not be confused.
A sacrament has two distinct kinds of effect: the internal effect, and the external effect.
[Page 333]
The internal effect is spiritual and therefore invisible. "The wind blithe where it Lisbeth and thou headrest the sound thereof but canned not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit" (St. John 3:8).
The external effect changes the recipient,s status in the Church. It is visible and even legal.
This distinction is often ignored, but it is very important. For instance, confirmation may produce a great internal effect or none at all. It may change the whole life, or it may appear to have made no change whatever. But the confirmed person, whatever the inward effect may have been, has the right of full membership, the right to receive Holy Communion, which he had not before he was confirmed, and which he could not otherwise have obtained. The case is even more clear with ordination. The man who is ordained priest in bad faith is none the less a priest. "The unworthiness of the ministers hinders not the effect of the sacrament" (Article 26).
Members of the Church who believe that she is a visible society lay emphasis on the external effect of sacraments. No one is a member at all unless he has been baptized. No one is a full member unless he has been confirmed and is a regular communicant. No one can be recognized as a bishop, priest, or deacon who has not been ordained by a bishop.
But those who do not believe that the Church is a visible society do not lay so much emphasis on the external effect of sacraments. They think that the Church is made up of those who have been converted, not of those who have been baptized and confirmed (J. H. Shakespeare,1 The Churches at the Cross-Roads, p. 55), and that baptism is useless if it does not lead to visible conversion, and unnecessary if that effect can be produced (as it can) without baptism. Hence arise endless misunderstandings.2
The word "valid" is a legal word, and in its proper sense means "recognized by the community". We say that a will or a check is valid if it is drawn in accordance with the law that is, the expressed will of the community. If it is not drawn so, it is invalid and therefore null and void. It must be written again.
1
This writer uses "regenerated" to mean "converted". See p. 343.2
The opinion that baptism, confirmation, and ordination, which cannot be repeated, convey "indelible character" was made a dogma by Trent. It goes back to St. Augustine but is not accepted by the Orthodox churches.[Page 334]
Sacraments are "valid" when they are recognized by the Church as performed in accordance with her law. A sacrament must be valid if it is to have the proper external effect. Validity is not directly concerned with the internal effect. If the Christian religion were concerned only with individuals, "validity of sacraments" would have no meaning. But the conception of validity is necessary to every society and therefore to the Church. Every society must be able to distinguish its members from non-members. It must therefore have a rule as to what constitutes "valid" membership. The method of admission must be strictly laid down. The rules which must be kept, if the privileges of membership are to be retained, must be defined. There must be no possibility of doubt about who is a member.
The Church likewise must have her rules about what makes baptism or any other sacrament valid. If someone claims to be a member whose baptism is not such as the Church can recognize ("invalid") or even doubtful, he must be baptized afresh in order that there may be no doubt about his membership in his mind or anyone else,s. It is the same with confirmation, and ordination, and marriage. If there is any doubt, the rite must be gone through again. The Holy Communion does not confer status in the same way as the sacraments just mentioned, but no one would be likely to benefit by his communion if he were beset by doubts whether it was valid.
A sacrament is "invalid" when the Church does not recognize it because something which the Church requires is lacking. An invalid sacrament is not necessarily ineffective. A Jacobite chief dying on the battlefield at Culloden was given communion by his chaplain who, in the absence of bread and wine, used oatcake and whisky. This sacrament was invalid since the Church requires bread and wine according to our Lord,s institution. But we need not doubt that it was effective. Nevertheless if anyone used oatcake and whisky or anything else when bread and wine could be obtained or when there was no urgent necessity for the sacrament, the invalid character of the sacrament would probably make it ineffective also; for it would show either gross disobedience or gross ignorance. The Church is the steward of the mysteries of God. She has been given authority to make rules and enforce them. Her members are bound to obey those rules; and if they deliberately break them, they have no right to expect that God will give them His grace. Therefore we cannot be sure that an invalid sacrament will have any spiritual effect unless those who administer it and receive it are alike ignorant that it is invalid; in which case, no doubt, God
[Page 335]
will not allow their ignorance to deprive them of His grace unless their ignorance was their own fault.1
The Church requires five conditions for a valid sacrament: the subject, matter, form, minister, and intention must be right.
The subject is the person who receives the sacrament. He must be capable of receiving it. For instance, he cannot receive valid baptism if he has been baptized before, and he cannot receive any other sacrament if he has not been baptized before.
The matter is the material thing used, as water, bread and wine, laying on of hands, etc.
The form is the words said which define the purpose with which the matter is used. Confirmation and ordination are both given by laying on of hands, but they are distinguished by their "form" which also distinguishes between the making of a deacon, the ordination of a priest, and the consecration of a bishop.
The minister must be someone who is authorized by the Church or who at least is recognized as capable of acting in her name. For instance, baptism administered by a layman, or even by a heretic, is recognized, but only a bishop or priest can celebrate the Eucharist.
The intention of the minister must be to do what the Church does as far as can be shown by his outward words and deeds. A mock sacrament (such as a stage marriage) is no sacrament.2 It is the external, not the internal, intention of the minister which must be right. If the absence of internal intention could make a sacrament invalid, we could not be certain of the validity of any sacrament; for no one can be certain that any minister is not a secret unbeliever. If the minister performs the sacrament as the Church requires, without any denial of his intention to do what the Church intends, that is sufficient evidence of his right intention.
These conditions necessary to validity have their counterparts in secular life. For instance, a check which is to be recognized by the bank (that is, valid) must be signed by the right person (right minister) on one of the bank,s checks (right subject, the check of another bank will not do) with ink (right matter).
1
In cases of extreme urgency like the one mentioned above, an invalid sacrament may be better than none at all; but even so, the Church cannot recognize it.2
The early Church did not accept this. There is a story of a mock baptism which led to its recipient,s conversion and martyrdom.
[Page 336]
If anyone thinks that legal requirements should have no place in religion, let him remember that the Christian religion is embodied in a society. If it were not, it would not need conditions of validity; but a society cannot exist without them, and the Christian Church is a society.
A sacrament received in bad faith that is, without the necessary moral conditions conveys, as far as we know, no benefit even though valid. On the contrary, a sacrament received without repentance and faith conveys harm, not good.1 The conditions of validity are necessary to remove doubt in the recipient,s mind and to secure the Church against false claimants to her privileges, but moral conditions are even more necessary. A bad priest may administer valid sacraments, and his wickedness does not necessarily hinder their effect for good; but his own soul only receives injury when he ministers in a state of unrepented sin.
The unworthiness of the ministers does not make the sacraments invalid. This was denied by Wycliffe, but its denial would make any corporate society impossible. Wycliffe was a theorist who had no opportunity of working out his ideas. Article 26 lays down that the effect of the sacraments depends on the promise of Christ and not on the worthiness of the minister; and it is supported by the practice of the Church everywhere.
A sacrament is said to be "valid but irregular" when it has been performed wrongly (that is, in a way which the Church forbids), but when the defect is not so grave as to make the Church refuse to recognize the sacrament. For instance, baptism by a layman is irregular but valid. It is irregular to celebrate the Eucharist with vessels not made of the precious metals. It is irregular to ordain a man under twenty-three without a dispensation. In cases of necessity, irregularity may be justified. But to give or receive a sacrament irregularly without necessity is a sin. (There are many degrees of irregularity, some very slight.)
Throughout the discussion of validity and regularity "the Church" has been referred to as if she were united. But though the whole Church is agreed in accepting the principle of validity
1
For the case of infant baptism see pp. 3413.
[Page 337]
(which no society can do without), there is no general agreement about the conditions which make some of the sacraments valid (though except in the case of ordination the differences are not great). We must therefore use the words "valid" and "invalid" with reference to a particular communion. There is no such thing as absolute validity, for "validity" means recognition by a particular society. For this purpose each communion must be regarded as a separate society. The question of validity between communions arises only when someone wishes to leave one communion for another, or two communions are trying to unite. Every society has the right to decide what status in other societies it will recognize as equivalent to its own (as when the University of Oxford recognized the degrees given by Cambridge and Dublin), and its decision is final for its members. We are members of the Anglican communion, and its decision is final for us. Even if as an individual I were to think the Anglican Communion mistaken, as an Anglican priest I should be bound to accept its decision in practice. This does not mean that the Anglican Communion could alter the conditions of validity which are universally accepted. It could not, for instance, accept as valid an ordination the minister of which was not a bishop; but it must decide (since there is no higher authority) whether ordination by a particular bishop conforms to the prescribed conditions.
The Eastern churches, both Orthodox and Separated, have never distinguished clearly between validity and regularity. Strictly speaking they recognize no sacraments as valid which are not administered by themselves. But the Orthodox Communion modifies this strictness by the principle of "economy". The Church, according to this principle, is the steward (@Æ6@<`:@H) of the mysteries of God and can make that valid which is in itself invalid if necessary for the salvation of souls. But this principle is severely limited. It can only be applied to persons who are without doubt orthodox in faith, and to communions which are orthodox on the sacrament in question. It could not be applied, for instance, to the baptism of a person belonging to a sect which rejected baptismal regeneration, or to the ordinations of a body which did not believe in priesthood; still less to persons who were themselves unorthodox on those points. Orthodox theologians differ widely about the limits
[Page 338]
of "economy", and Orthodox churches apply the principle in different ways. A man may be accepted as a priest in one whom another would require to be ordained. In any case the principle of "economy" is a purely Eastern one. It has no place in the Anglican system. Dispensation is in some cases a substitute for it. But in the Anglican system dispensation can only remove irregularity. It cannot make an invalid sacrament valid.
The number of the sacraments has been reckoned differently at different periods. It is universally agreed that Baptism and the Eucharist stand in a class by themselves. They are distinguished by two marks: an outward and visible sign ordained by Christ Himself, and their necessity to salvation for all men. ("Generally" necessary to salvation means not "usually" but "in all cases".)
There are other rites of the Church mentioned in the New Testament which are commonly called sacraments. Peter Lombard (about 1150) was the first to define the number of sacraments as seven: Baptism, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Ordination, Marriage, Penance, and Unction of the Sick. This number is accepted by both the Orthodox and the Roman Communions. The Council of Trent laid down that there are seven sacraments, neither more nor less, all ordained by Christ Himself; but it distinguished the two greater sacraments from the five lesser (see p. 470).
The Church of England in Article 25 says that the five "commonly called sacraments" have not like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord,s Supper. It does not say that they are not sacraments.1 As far as the article goes, it agrees with the Council of Trent.
That there are seven sacraments is not a dogma except in the Roman Communion. But it is convenient to speak of seven sacraments. We need not hesitate to do so. It is certain that Confirmation and Ordination are outward visible signs conveying grace; though we have no proof that they were commanded by our Lord Himself, they rest on the authority of the Apostles directed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:17; II Tim. 1:6). Marriage is called a sacrament because St. Paul calls it "a great mystery", :LFJZD4@< (mysterion) being the Greek word for sacrament. Some have denied that
1
"Commonly called" cannot mean "commonly but wrongly called"; compare "The Nativity of Christ, commonly called Christmas Day"!
[Page 339]
Penance is a sacrament because it has no outward sign; others, that Unction is a sacrament because it is for the healing of the body. (I am inclined to think with some medieval writers that the Anointing of a King (I Kings 1:39; etc.) is a true sacrament conveying grace.)
But though there are differences about the precise number of the sacraments, it is necessary to hold that Confirmation, Ordination, Marriage, Penance or Absolution, and Unction are means by which God,s grace is bestowed upon us, ex opere operato; that is, that the reception of Divine grace is guaranteed in these cases by a Divine promise.
Luther taught that there were only three sacraments, the same three which, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, are necessary to salvation: Baptism, the Eucharist, and Penance. The Lutheran denial that Confirmation and Ordination are sacraments is a great obstacle to reunion.
Baptism was commanded by our Lord (St. Matt. 28:16, supported by the appendix to St. Mark, 16:16). Many scholars refuse to believe that the form "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" can be so early, but they rely chiefly on the argument from silence which is notoriously unsafe.1 Though incidents only found in the First Gospel have not very good historical authority, it is hard to believe that in a matter so important as this the tradition can be mistaken. Even if the threefold formula is not certainly His, the command to baptize must be His. There is no doubt that Baptism was the method of admission to the Church from the very beginning (see Acts 2:38, 41; I Cor. 1:13). In the New Testament admission to the Church is always by baptism. This is assumed in Acts 10:47, 19:3; Rom. 6:3.
St. Paul tells us that baptism is the means of union with the death
1
G. H. Marsh, Origin and Significance of New Testament Baptism (1941), gives their reasons.
[Page 340]
of Christ (Rom. 6:3-11; Col. 2:12) and assumes that the Roman Christians who had not been converted by himself had been taught this. In Eph. 5:26 baptism is the means by which the Church is cleansed. Titus 3:5 mentions "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost"; and according to I St. Peter 3:21 baptism saves us. But the principal source for the meaning of baptism is St. John 3:5 where our Lord tells Nicodemus that no one can enter into the kingdom of God unless he has been born of water and of the Spirit. The Church has always held that this passage refers to baptism.1 It is incredible that the interview between our Lord and Nicodemus was invented by the Evangelist, and it is by itself enough to show that baptism was commanded by our Lord Himself.2
Circumcision was the method of admission to the Church of the Old Covenant. Proselytes were baptized as well as circumcised. The Christian Church gave up circumcision when she ceased to be a Jewish sect (Gal. 5:2; Acts 15:28). Baptism had been the necessary method of admission to the Church even in the Jewish period.
The "subject" of baptism is any person who has not been baptized before. Baptism confers a position of which the recipient can never be deprived. No one who has been baptized can ever become as if he were unbaptized, even by the "greater excommunication", the heaviest punishment which the Church can inflict. Therefore nobody can be baptized a second time. But if there is any doubt whether a baptism took place or whether it was valid, the person must be baptized conditionally.
The "matter" of baptism is water. (The sign of the cross is a mere symbol and is not necessary to the baptism.) No liquid except water may be used. The person may be dipped in the water as in
1
"No passage from any Father can be adduced which gives any other explanation. Next there is the large body of Fathers of every Church who do interpret the text as a matter of course of baptism. Third, all the liturgies, in all the ways in which it is possible to, apply it": E. B. Pusey, Tracts for the Times, No. 67, p. 57.2
Our Lord was no doubt referring to the future; that is why Nicodemus did not understand Him.
[Page 341]
all the Eastern churches, or the water may be poured on his head (affusion) which was the Western practice from the earliest times. In either case it should be done three times, though this is not essential. The water should be poured, not "sprinkled".
The "form" of baptism is: "I baptize thee" (in the Eastern churches, "The servant of God is baptized") "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". The Church has not for many centuries recognized as valid any other form than this.1 There is no actual evidence for the theory that baptism was originally "in the name of Jesus Christ" alone.
The minister of baptism is a priest, or a deacon in the absence of a priest. A deacon may not baptize when a priest is present. In case of necessity that is, when the candidate is in danger of death anyone may baptize. St. Thomas Aquinas held that baptism administered even by a non-Christian was valid.2 A woman ought not to baptize if a man is present.3
The effect of baptism is of two kinds, internal and external.
The internal effect is the New Birth or regeneration, the beginning of life in grace (St. John 3:5). Every person who is baptized receives the new birth, but the new birth does not always develop into spiritual life. Baptism also conveys the forgiveness of sins. It removes the guilt but not the power of sin committed before baptism and provides the recipient with a remedy against the tendency to sin ("original sin") with which all human beings are born. Acknowledgment of "one baptism for the remission of sins" is a dogma of the faith. But if anyone is baptized without repentance, his sins will not be forgiven; if without faith the new birth will profit him nothing. Infants not old enough to have repentance or faith are baptized none the less. It is not the absence of repentance and faith but deliberate rejection of them that hinders the effect of the baptism. God,s gift does not depend on our capacity.
1
Pope Nicholas I appears to have recognized baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" as valid, but his opinion is not accepted by any part of the Church.2
Summa Theologica, iii. 67, 5. The Orthodox churches deny this.3
St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., iii. 67, 4.
[Page 342]
The external effect of baptism is admission into the Church as "a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven";1 inheritor not as one who will possess it one day but as one who possesses it now. Since only members of the Church can receive the sacraments, no unbaptized person is capable of receiving any other sacrament. The confirmation, ordination, or communion of an unbaptized person is invalid.
The baptism of infants has been the practice of the Church from very early times. There is no certain evidence for it in the New Testament, but it is proved from Scripture by the combination of St. Mark 10:14 with St. John 3:5, for if children are to be brought to the Savior, "for of such is the kingdom of God", and no one can enter the kingdom of God but by baptism, it must by our duty to baptize children. These two passages are the liturgical Gospels used at the baptism of infants and adults respectively which shows that the English Church sanctions this interpretation. Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20 show that there were children in the Christian community.
The rubric to the baptismal service declares that infants dying after baptism before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved. This is the universal teaching of the Church.
We can say nothing of the fate of children who die unbaptized. The current teaching of the Roman Communion, based on St. Thomas Aquinas,2 is that children who die unbaptized before they have committed actual sin attain to the greatest possible natural happiness but not the supernatural happiness of the Beatific Vision. All we can say is that no pains should be spared to prevent any child of Christian parents from dying unbaptized.
But the practice of infant baptism was not intended for the children of parents who had no intention of bringing them up as Christians. The godparents were provided to see that the parents did their duty. But it is not right to allow children to be bound by promises which they have no reasonable chance of fulfilling or to admit to the Church large numbers of merely nominal members. This deplorably
1
Church Catechism.2
Summa Theologica, Suppl. 69, 6; unbaptized infants are said to be excluded from heaven because of "original guilt".
[Page 343]
common practice has done more than anything else to weaken the sense of Church membership. But any unbaptized child may be baptized if in danger of death.
Private or clinical baptism is only allowed in the Church of England in cases of sickness. All such baptisms should be at once registered; and if the candidate recovers, he must be presented in church.
Adult candidates for baptism must be carefully prepared and instructed as for confirmation. They should be advised but cannot be compelled to confess their sins to the priest. They must not be baptized unless the priest is as certain as possible of their repentance and faith. But they are not to be absolved. Their forgiveness is conveyed by baptism. The bishop must be given at least a week,s notice of an adult baptism as the Prayer Book directs, and the baptism should be followed as soon as possible by confirmation. Anyone who is old enough to be confirmed is old enough to be baptized as an adult.
Regeneration conveyed by baptism must be distinguished from conversion. The two are often confused. Conversion is the conscious turning of the soul to God. It may come before baptism as in the case of St. Paul, but it very often comes later. It may be sudden, but more often it is gradual. Regeneration, on the other hand, is usually subconscious. It is the first beginning of the life in grace and is given even to infants. Modern psychologists have shown the immense importance of the subconscious. They were anticipated by the Church which relies on the Holy Ghost to sanctify the whole man, subconscious as well as conscious. Those who look for the beginning of the life in grace at the age when the boy or girl is ready consciously to accept Christ as Savior ignore this psychological fact.
There is no difference on the doctrine of baptism between the Catholic communions, and the Lutherans are orthodox on this point. But the Presbyterians, though infant baptism is their practice, do not apparently believe that it conveys regeneration or that it is necessary to membership of the Church in all cases. The
[Page 344]
Presbyterian doctrine of baptism appears to be that it is the sealing or public recognition of grace and election already given, which is consistent with the Presbyterian doctrine of ordination. Baptism administered by Presbyterians is accepted as valid by the Church if the matter and form have been used (Presbyterian ministers are not always careful about this), but the Presbyterian doctrine of baptism is a deeper cause of separation from the Church than Presbyterian ministry or church government. At the Edinburgh Conference on Faith and Order in 1937 the Presbyterian Church of Scotland invited all members of the conference, baptized or not, to a general communion service. Similar Anglican invitations have always been limited to the baptized.
The Church regards all baptized children as her members. The Congregationalists and other bodies do not regard them as members till they are able as adolescents to "receive the right hand of fellowship".1 From this theological difference comes the profound difference between the Church (Anglican or Roman) and other Christians about religious education. The Church demands Church teaching for children as members of the Church which is intended to lead up to confirmation and first communion. The other religious bodies hold that children must choose for themselves when old enough, and they are therefore satisfied with undenominational teaching. It is one of the gravest practical differences within Christendom; and since it arises from fundamental divergence of principle, the religious teaching of Church children and children belonging to bodies which are unorthodox about baptism ought to be kept entirely separate.
Baptism carries with it very grave responsibility. Sin after baptism is much more serious than sin before baptism (Heb. 10:26). It is therefore important that everything possible should be done to make baptism a solemn reality. The present lax administration of baptism is a survival from the ages when the whole population could be regarded as Christian, and it is not easy to see the remedy for it. But there is no more urgent problem before the Church.
The remedy for grave sin after baptism is the sacrament of absolution (see pp. 393, 42831).
1
Many Congregationalists deny that baptism is of any importance. Even their ministers are often unbaptized. Some Baptists give communion to unbaptized persons.
[Page 345]
Confirmation is the gift of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. The chief Scriptural authority for it is found in Acts 8:17, 19:2, and Heb. 6:2. These passages with others show that Confirmation was necessary to membership of the Church, that it was a fundamental principle of the doctrine of Christ, and that it was administered by apostles only (for Philip the deacon had no power to administer it). It was in early times, as in all the Eastern churches to the present day, combined with baptism and administered at the same time.
The subject of confirmation is a baptized person who has not been already confirmed. An unbaptized person cannot be confirmed. If any one has by error been confirmed without having been baptized, he must be baptized and then receive confirmation, for his former confirmation is invalid. No one can receive valid confirmation more than once. Ordination includes confirmation. A candidate for ordination ought first to have been confirmed; but if he has been ordained without being confirmed, he need not be confirmed (see p. 388).
The matter of confirmation is the laying on of hands; but as this is not of Divine command, the Church has the power to change it. The Orthodox and other Eastern Communions, and the Roman Communion,1 have made anointing with chrism the matter of confirmation. (Chrism is an ointment made from oil and balsam, not to be confused with the oil used in unction of the sick.) The Anglican communion has returned to the New Testament practice of confirmation by laying on of hands which is also used by some Lutherans.
The form of confirmation is a prayer for the gifts of the Spirit (Acts 8:15).
1
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, iii. 72, 2. But some regard the outstretched hands of the bishop or the (comparatively modern) slap on the cheek as equivalent to the Laying on of Hands.
[Page 346]
The minister of confirmation is a bishop, directly or indirectly. In the Anglican communion the bishop alone may give confirmation. In the Eastern Communions ordinarily, and in the Roman Communion by dispensation, a priest may confirm with chrism blessed by the bishop. (In the Orthodox Communion the blessing of chrism is the privilege of a patriarch, and the right to bless the chrism is the sign that a church has become completely self-governing.)
The internal effect of confirmation is the seven-fold gift of the Holy Ghost. The seven gifts are wisdom, understanding, counsel, knowledge, spiritual strength, true godliness, and holy fear (Isa. 11:2, in the ancient Greek translation; in our Bible, translated from the original Hebrew text, there are only six gifts). By the right use of these gifts the Christian is enabled to prepare himself to receive the communion and also to meet the dangers of adolescent and adult life.
The external effect of confirmation is admission into the full membership of the Church, and ordination to the priesthood of the laity. Baptism is not complete without it. It is only the confirmed who are ordinarily admitted to communion (though those who are ready and willing to be confirmed may be admitted for urgent reasons); for it is by communicating that we join most fully in offering the sacrifice of Christ which we are not entitled to do till we have been ordained to the lay priesthood. But all baptized persons have a right to be present at the offering of the Eucharist. According to A. J. Mason and F. W. Puller, the Holy Ghost is given in confirmation and not in baptism; but the usual view is that the Holy Ghost is given both in baptism and in confirmation, but for different purposes. Evidence from the early church is not easy to obtain because baptism and confirmation formed a single service.
It is a universal rule of the Church that no one may ordinarily be admitted to communion who has not been confirmed. It was universal in ancient times. In the Middle Ages confirmation was much neglected because the dioceses were so large and the bishops so busy with secular offices, but the rule remained in force. The Church of England allows an unconfirmed person to receive
[Page 347]
communion only if "ready and desirous to be confirmed", which merely continues the pre-Reformation rule. It is of the utmost importance that this rule should be rigidly observed because the baptism of infants is often so indiscriminately administered that we cannot treat it as always conferring real membership. The rule that only the confirmed are admitted to communion is almost the only rule of discipline in the English Church which is generally observed.
It is also the only means of excluding persons who are not in communion with the Church. Strictly speaking such persons are not to be admitted to communion even if they have been confirmed; but this is difficult to enforce because it is not explicitly laid down in the Anglican formularies. Those who have been brought up in the Calvinist belief that the Church is invisible cannot see why they should not be admitted to communion anywhere. It is useless to point out to them that those who wish for the privileges of a society must submit to its rules, because they have never been taught that the Church is a society, or that communion is the privilege of members of the visible Church, not of Christians as individuals. The written formularies of the English Church were drawn up in an age when everyone was a member of the Church, and therefore do not forbid the communion of non-members (though the canons of 1604 declare those who separate from the Church to be excommunicated). But they do forbid the communion of those who are neither confirmed nor willing to be confirmed.
In the Roman Communion where these difficulties do not arise, first communion is often given before confirmation, but it is a modern abuse and was condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1897, approving of a decision of the Diocesan Synod of Marseilles (A. C. Hall, Confirmation, p. 94).
The age at which confirmation is given has differed widely in different ages and countries. The ancient custom still continued in the Eastern churches was to administer it to infants. In the West it became usual in the Middle Ages to postpone it to the age or reason that is, seven years old. The English Prayer Book requires all children to have learned the Catechism before confirmation which is to be given when the child reaches years of discretion that is, when he is able to distinguish right from wrong.1
1 Not when he becomes "discreet"; in that case many would never be confirmed!
[Page 348]
Queen Elizabeth I was confirmed by Archbishop Cranmer when she was a week old. This was probably deliberate archaism. John Wesley was confirmed at eight (1711). This was usual at that time. The modern custom of postponing confirmation till the sixteenth year is due to Lutheran influence.
In practice no rigid rule can be laid down because the development and the circumstances of different children differ so much. It is now generally agreed by those who know what confirmation is and have studied the psychology of children that when the home is thoroughly Christian, confirmation should be given before adolescence begins that is, not later than the thirteenth year provided that it is followed up with careful instruction for some years. In some cases it may be given at eight or nine. But where the atmosphere of the home is not sympathetic, it may be better to postpone confirmation to about eighteen when the boy or girl is old enough to stand up against the indifference or opposition of his or her parents.
The renewal of the baptismal vows which is part of the Anglican confirmation service is in no way necessary to confirmation and can be done more than once. The unfortunate phrase "ratify and confirm" applied to the vows since 1552 (but altered in the 1928 revision to "ratify and confess") has led to the common error that confirmation is merely the renewal of baptismal vows. (If it were, there would be no need for the presence of a bishop.) When confirmation is given early, candidates may be asked to make a fresh renewal of vows when they approach adult life at about eighteen.
The rite called confirmation by the Lutherans is a different thing from the Catholic sacrament. In German they are expressed by two different words.1 Luther held that the laying on of hands by the apostles conferred miraculous gifts only and ceased with the Apostolic Age. This opinion is contrary to the teaching of the Church in all ages as well as to the New Testament evidence. Lutheran confirmation is a public profession of faith prepared for
1
Catholic Confirmation is Firmung; Evangelical Confirmation is Konfirmation.
[Page 349]
by long and careful instruction. This profession of faith is made to the parish priest or pastor in the presence of all the candidate,s friends and neighbors in the church, and is accompanied by prayer for the gifts of the Holy Spirit. After it the candidate is admitted to his first communion.
Laying on of hands is, however, practiced in some Lutheran countries. In Sweden and Finland where it is not officially authorized, it is spreading rapidly. There is a historical case of a Swedish bishop who, at the request of Bishop Blomfield of London and with the consent of the King of Sweden and the Swedish Synod, confirmed some Anglican candidates living in Sweden in the Anglican manner.
The Continental Reformed Churches have a rite of confirmation similar to that of the Lutherans, and so have the Presbyterians (according to the Book of Common Order, published by the authority of the Scottish General Assembly). It is definitely not sacramental.
The Holy Eucharist, Holy Communion, Lord,s Supper, or Mass is the central act of Christian worship, as the Incarnation which it commemorates and to which it corresponds is the central Christian belief.
The Holy Eucharist was instituted by our Lord. The Church Catechism speaks of two sacraments "ordained by Christ Himself". We are bound to believe that He instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, and we need not hesitate to do so for it is historically certain.
We have three independent accounts of this event: St. Paul,s (I Cor. 11:23), St. Mark,s (14:22), and St. Luke,s (22:17-20). St. Matthew,s account (26:26-29) is probably based on St. Mark,s. Besides these we have the discourse on the Living Bread in St. John 6.
St. Paul is our only certain written authority for our Lord,s command "Do this". It does not occur in St. Mark or St. Matthew,
[Page 350]
and in St. Luke it only occurs in a doubtful reading. But the evidence of St. Paul is quite enough, especially as he declares that it was part of what he had "received of the Lord" and as it is supported by the universal practice of the Church. His account is probably earlier than any of the Gospels.
The discourse in St. John 6 is a companion piece to the discourse on Baptism in St. John 3. It must refer directly to the Eucharist which was, by the time that this Gospel was written, a long-established Christian practice.
When our Lord said, "I am the Door", "I am the true Vine", He was speaking metaphorically, but not when He said, "I am the Living Bread". The institution of the Eucharist and the practice of the Church show that when He spoke of the Living Bread, He was referring to the sacrament which He was going to institute; and the departure of many of His disciples shows that they knew He had said something very important which none the less they could not accept.
The practice of the Apostolic Church is shown by Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7,11; I Cor. 11:23 ff. The "breaking of bread" was one of the distinctive marks of the Christian community. (St. Luke 24:30 is probably not an instance, and Acts 27:30 is certainly not one.)
In spite of this evidence and in spite of the unique character of the Christian Eucharist, attempts have been made to show that it was brought in from the Mystery Religions and was not part of the original Christian tradition. These attempts are now discredited, but they still have their effect on those who have not understood the weight of the evidence against them.
When it was discovered that in many early religions, and particularly in the "mystery religions" of the Roman Empire which contained some very primitive features, there were ceremonies superficially resembling the Christian Eucharist, many people assumed that the Christian Eucharist was derived from the mystery religions. St. Paul sometimes used words which were employed in a technical sense by the adherents of these cults, and it was suggested that as St. Paul gives us the earliest account of the Eucharist, it was he who adapted a practice of the mystery religions to Christian use. It was a theory especially attractive to "Liberal" theologians, to whom the sacramental, like the miraculous, element in Christianity was incredible and required to be explained away because it was a
[Page 351]
hindrance to their theory that Catholicism is a perversion of the original simple non-miraculous Christianity. It was also supported by the adherents of the equally one-sided and misleading theory of the "apocalyptic Christ".
But what evidence we have for the sacramental practices of the mystery religions is all later than the New Testament. Closer examination of them shows that their differences from the Christian Eucharist are greater than their resemblances to it. St. Paul, though he used technical words to illustrate his meaning, tells us that he received his teaching about the Eucharist from the Lord. If he knew anything about the banquets of the mystery religions, it can only have been vaguely (as most educated men today know something about Freemasonry). There can be no doubt that those banquets were to him "the table of devils" which he contrasted with "the table of the Lord" (I Cor. 10:21).
The Holy Eucharist differs from the other sacraments in having not two parts but three. The Church Catechism recognizes this when it asks two questions about Baptism, "What is the outward sign?", and "What are the benefits which we receive thereby?" In Baptism as in other sacraments the thing signified is the same as the benefits, but not in the Eucharist.
The outward sign (signum) in the Eucharist is bread and wine.
The thing signified (res) is the Body and Blood of Christ.
The benefits (gratia) are the strengthening and refreshing of our souls.
We take first the outward sign; the subject, matter, form, and minister.
The subject of the Eucharist that is, the person capable of receiving it is any one who has been baptized. The communion of the unbaptized is invalid. In no conditions whatever may a person who is known to be unbaptized be admitted to communion. Even if he is dying, he must be baptized first.
A person who is baptized but not confirmed may be admitted to communion for urgent reasons (such as illness or danger of death) if he is ready and willing to be confirmed. Otherwise his communion is irregular but valid.
[Page 352]
To admit to communion a person who is not in full communion with the Church is gravely irregular. Even if he has been confirmed, he ought not to be admitted to communion while he belongs to any sect which is not in communion with the Church. But in some circumstances his admission may be allowed; for instance, if he is dying or in danger of death and earnestly desires it (provided that he has been baptized). Sometimes the Church allows members of separated communions this privilege when they have no access to their own clergy, but this permission should be given with great caution and only to members of communions whose doctrine of the sacraments is orthodox.1
The "matter" of the Eucharist is "bread and wine which the Lord hath commanded to be received". The bread must be wheaten bread and may be leavened or unleavened. Wafer bread specially made is to be preferred to common bread since in common bread the flour is nowadays always mixed with other substances. The Eastern churches, except the Armenian, use leavened bread specially prepared, which seems to have been the practice of the early Church to avoid the unleavened bread used by the Jews. But unleavened bread has been used in the West for at least a thousand years.
(The Assyrian Church has a custom peculiar to itself. The priest bakes the bread himself before each liturgy, adding to it a small portion reserved from the last liturgy. This is called the Succession of the Leaven, and the Assyrians believe that it goes back to the Last Supper.)
The wine must be the juice of grapes in which fermentation has not been artificially stopped. Fresh grape juice is allowed and is sometimes used in grape-growing countries. The so-called "non-alcoholic wine" in which fermentation has been stopped artificially is not allowed, and the use if it makes the sacrament invalid. It has been sufficiently proved that in the Bible the word "wine" means fermented grape juice.
The "form" of the Eucharist is a prayer in which the account of the institution is recited. In all ancient liturgies the central feature is a prayer to the Father thanking Him for all the acts of
1
The Orthodox churches have sometimes permitted members of the Armenian, Assyrian, and Anglican Communions, when far from their own churches, to receive communion by "economy", as a special privilege.
[Page 353]
redemption, and including (except in the Liturgy of Mar Adai used in the Assyrian Church where its presence is uncertain) the recital of the story of the institution of the Eucharist as our authority for continuing to do what our Lord did. This central prayer is called the Anaphora, or Canon of the Mass.
In all the Eastern liturgies, the Gallican liturgies,1 and the modern Anglican liturgies except the liturgy of the English Church, this prayer leads up to the "Epiclesis" or prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost, which is usually considered to go back to Hippolytus of Rome in the third century (some scholars think that the Epiclesis in Hippolytus is a later interpolation). In the Roman Liturgy, the early history of which is obscure and disputed, there is no Epiclesis, though some scholars hold that there once was one. Nor is there one in the present English rite which in its chief features dates from 1552. No other liturgy, ancient or modern, lacks an Epiclesis.2
The medieval Schoolmen taught that the consecration in the Eucharist was effected by the recital of the words "This is My Body; this is My Blood". These words were therefore surrounded from the thirteenth century with special ceremonies of which the elevation of the elements is the most important. But this theory is not consistent with the text of the Roman Liturgy in which the elements are called "this holy Bread of eternal life and this cup of everlasting salvation", after the words have been said by which (according to the theory of Transubstantiation) the bread has ceased to be really bread. Still less is it consistent with other ancient liturgies, although it is enforced upon the Uniat Eastern churches subject to Rome which use those liturgies.
The theory is founded upon the teaching of St. Ambrose, though it is not certain that St. Ambrose really taught it. If he did, he may have been influenced by the pagan religion of Rome which was a religion of formulae. (St. Ambrose was not a trained theologian but a civil servant who was not baptized till after his election to the bishopric of Milan in 374.)
The Elevation and the ceremonies which accompanied it were disused in England after the Reformation,3 and the removal of the Epiclesis from the English rite in 1552 is due to the influence of
1
The group of Western, Latin, but not Roman, liturgies used in France, Spain, and the Keltic countries before 800, and surviving only in the Mozarabic Liturgy of Toledo.2
Except the Lutheran liturgies.3
The Elevation was forbidden by the rubric in the First Prayer Book; and Queen Elizabeth I, who resisted the Calvinist attack on ceremonies, would not allow the Elevation.
[Page 354]
Bucer and other foreign reformers who regarded the Eucharist as only a commemoration of Christ,s death, and did not connect it, as the ancient liturgies did, with the whole work of redemption including the coming of the Holy Ghost.
The theory of the Schoolmen, though prevalent in Latin Christendom since the thirteenth century, has never been known in the East where the older belief that the consecration is effected by the whole prayer, not by one phrase in it, is still held. From the seventeenth century the ancient and Eastern view has been held by the best Anglican divines, and all the revisions of the English rite since 1764 have contained an Epiclesis after the words of institution.
The ancient doctrine makes the consecration the direct work of God in answer to the prayer of the Church; whereas the theory of the Schoolmen, according to which the priest is said to "make the Body of Christ", emphasizes the work of man. The undue emphasis given to the priest as the man empowered to "make the Body of Christ" has led by reaction to the denial of the change in the elements and of the doctrine of the priesthood.
The recital of the words of institution by themselves, as in the Lutheran liturgies and as ordered by the Anglican rubric providing for a fresh consecration (altered in all modern Anglican rites), is at least gravely irregular, for in all other liturgies the words of institution occur in a prayer, never by themselves.
The minister of the Eucharist is a bishop or priest. In early times the bishop was the normal celebrant, the priests present joining in celebrating with him. (There was in the third century a short-lived custom that confessors that is, men who had suffered for the faith were ranked as priests without ordination, but there is no evidence that they ever celebrated the Eucharist or had any privilege other than sitting with the priests in church. According to the ancient document known as the Didachè (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), "prophets" were sometimes invited to preside at the Eucharist; but its date and source are unknown, and there is no other instance of such a practice.)
The minister of the Eucharist must receive Communion himself. Even if he celebrates more than once a day (which he should not
[Page 355]
do without necessity), he must communicate himself each time. If he does not, that Eucharist is invalid. This has been the rule of the whole Church in all ages except the Churches of Sweden and Finland since 1602. (For the reason, see p. 370).
The reception of "both kinds", the bread and the wine, was expressly commanded by our Lord, who said, "Drink of it, all of you" (B\,J, > "ÛJ@Ø BV<J,H: St. Matt. 26:27). The practice of communicating in one kind only was forbidden by three Popes, Gelasius, St. Leo , and Urban II, all of whom condemned those who refused to receive from the cup. Young children and sick persons who could not receive solid food were allowed to receive from the cup only; and there is evidence that the bread was reserved alone, but how common this was is disputed. About the thirteenth century the custom of refusing the cup to the laity sprang up through mistaken reverence in spite of papal prohibitions. This took place about the same time as the definition of Transubstantiation, the emphasis on the Elevation of the Host, and its extra-liturgical use as in processions. All these novelties marked a profound change in the popular attitude towards the Eucharist. The restoration to the laity of the right to the cup was one of the chief demands of John Huss and his Czech followers, and the Council of Constance (1415) which burned Huss gave the first formal sanction to communion in one kind only, which was afterwards repeated by the Council of Trent. The Utraquists, or moderate Hussites, were allowed communion in both kinds by the Council of Basle, but this was never sanctioned by the Pope. However, communion in both kinds was allowed in Germany for about ten years when the Reformation was at its height; but when the Counter-Reformation removed the danger of the loss of all Germany to Rome, the permission was canceled.
The Anglican churches strictly forbid communion in one kind only as contrary to the Lord,s command. "Both parts of the Lord,s Sacrament, by Christ,s ordinance and commandment, ought to be administered to all Christian men alike" (Article 30). "Then shall the Minister receive the Communion in both kinds himself, and then proceed to deliver the same to the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in like manner, if any be present, and after that to the people also in order" (Rubric in the Liturgy). The church may not "ordain anything contrary to God,s word written", from which it follows
[Page 356]
that the Church has no right to permit communion in one kind only except in case of absolute necessity. This by itself would fully justify the Anglican rejection of the jurisdiction of Rome.
All the Eastern churches administer communion in both kinds. Since some time in the Middle Ages the laity (but not the clergy) receive both kinds together. Even the reserved sacrament is always administered in both kinds. (Two Greek priests whom I met in Jerusalem, discussing the Roman claims, said to me, "The Pope can have all the honor, but he has no right to forbid us to obey our Lord,s command".)
Concomitance, which is sometimes put forward as the basis of communion in one kind only, is the doctrine that the whole Christ is given and received under either kind alone. We do not deny this doctrine, though it would not be easy to prove it from Scripture; and therefore we do not insist that communion in one kind only (though our old divines called it the "half communion") is invalid. But the theory of Concomitance must not be given as a reason for disobeying the command of our Lord. This would be "to make the word of God of none effect by our tradition" for which the Pharisees were condemned (St. Mark 7:13).
Some have objected to drinking from a common cup for fear of infection. (For this reason many Presbyterian and Congregationalist congregations use "individual cups", but the Church does not allow it.) All reasonable precautions should be taken, but there is no serious danger if they are taken. The clergy run more risk than anyone, and statistics show that the clergy is the most long-lived class in the country. Persons suffering from infectious diseases may be communicated in both kinds by "intinction" (dipping the bread in the wine and touching with it each "host"1 that is to be received).
But intinction, though the usual method of communicating the laity in the East, should only be used by Anglican priests for special reasons such as communion with the reserved sacrament (when necessary), and communion of infectious persons or those suffering from alcoholic disease.
Reservation in one kind only is not permissible in the Anglican Communion. It was allowed in the early Church, but so were many other practices connected with the reserved sacrament which no one would now defend.
Communion in both kinds is a Divine command which the Church
1
For the meaning of this word see p. 360.
[Page 357]
has no right to disobey except where communion in one kind only is the sole alternative to no communion at all. Any Anglican priest who refuses the cup to the laity, and any lay person who refuses to receive it (except for the most necessary reasons, and then only with the bishop,s permission) is committing a grave sin and rendering himself liable to the severest ecclesiastical penalties.
The thing signified (res sacramenti), the spiritual reality of which the bread and wine are the outward signs in the Holy Eucharist, is the Body and Blood of Christ who has said, "This is My Body: this is My Blood".
The Church Catechism teaches that the thing signified is "the Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord,s Supper."
Article 28 says: "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner: and the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith." The author of this article, Bishop Guest, has left it on record that he inserted the word "given" in order to assert that the bread and wine become by consecration the Body and Blood of Christ. The rubric, dating from 1662, which distinguishes between the consecrated bread and wine which are to be consumed in the church, and the unconsecrated bread and wine which "the Curate is to have to his own use", shows that the English Church teaches that the bread and wine are changed by the consecration.1
The words "Body" and "Blood" do not mean the material body and blood of our Lord. To think that they do is to fall into the error
1
In 1574 a priest who, when the consecrated wine failed, went on with wine which had not been consecrated, was condemned by the court and imprisoned for a year. (W. H. Frere, Some Principles of Religious Ceremonial, p. 178.)
[Page 358]
of "Capharnaism" so called from the Jews of Capernaum who asked, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?"
The body is the means by which the spirit expresses itself. Though it has been widely held that our Lord has only one Body, it seems that He has at least two. The Church is His Body, but not that Body which was crucified and is now exalted to the throne of God. The bread in the Eucharist becomes the Body of Christ; not His material Body nor His mystical Body (the Church), but His sacramental Body, the means by which He carries out His purpose of feeding us spiritually with His own life.
We avoid many difficulties if we say that He has more than one Body, more than one means of expression. This material Body was one means of expression. The bread at the Last Supper was another. It has always been difficult to explain how the bread at the Last Supper could be our Lord,s Body if He had only one Body; but if He has more than one Body, the bread can be held to be His Body in a different sense.1
Though it has been widely held that the Body of which we partake is the same Body as that which was born of the Blessed Virgin and hung on the Cross, there appears to be nothing in Holy Scripture or in any definition of the universal Church to prevent us from distinguishing them from one another.
In any case, the sacramental Body of Christ is not His dead Body, as was held by some of the Anglican divines of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, for He "was dead and is alive for evermore" (Rev. 1:18).
The blood is in Hebrew thought the life, especially when released in sacrifice in order to be offered to God. The Israelites were forbidden to drink the blood which belonged to God. The Eucharist was instituted for men who were accustomed to this idea. To "drink the blood" is to share the life. As members of Christ we are permitted to share the life of our Savior because it was given for us, and we do this when we receive the bread and the wine in the Holy Eucharist, for they have become the Body and Blood of Christ. "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life."
1
I owe this opinion to Canon H. L. Pass, sometime Principal of Chichester Theological College, and it certainly seems to solve more difficulties than it raises.
[Page 359]
Except some of the extreme Reformers who held that the Eucharist was only "a sign of Christian men,s profession", and those who held that we do not receive the Body and Blood of Christ but that the effect on us, or virtue of the sacrament, is the same as if we did, all Christians believe that in the Holy Communion we receive the Body and Blood of Christ. The controversies have all been about the manner of the gift, not the gift itself, and about the way in which we ought to use it.
The following lines are attributed to Queen Elizabeth I:
"Christ was the Word that spake it:
He took the bread and brake it:
And what His word doth make it,
That I believe and take it."
Here the consecration is attributed to the word of Christ, "This is my Body". (This is the medieval doctrine from which even the Reformers could not altogether escape. It was not until the next century that the study of the Fathers led to the rediscovery of the older doctrine of the consecration.)
The result of the change effected by the consecration of the bread and wine is commonly called the Real Presence, though these words are not found in Scripture, in any dogma defined by the Ecumenical Councils, or in any official formula of the Anglican Communion.
That the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ is implied by Scripture and was explicitly taught by the Fathers. If we believe this, as we can hardly fail to do if we accept the universal agreement of the ancient Church as determining the meaning of the New Testament in matters of doctrine, we must hold that the living Christ is personally present and that we receive Him when we receive the consecrated bread and wine. It seems better to say "The Bread becomes the Body of Christ" than to say "The Body of Christ is present", because the word "present" must be used not in the ordinary sense but in a mysterious sense, undefined because heavenly.
It is easier to say what this "presence" is not, than what it is. It is not natural, or physical, or local. The Body of Christ does not
[Page 360]
move through space. Even Cardinal Newman wrote, "When the Host is carried in procession, the Body of Christ does not move". The Body and Blood of Christ do not possess the properties of bread and wine.
The word sacrament is applied to the Eucharist in different senses. It may mean the outward visible sign as when Article 29, quoting St. Augustine, calls the bread and wine "the sign or sacrament of so great a thing". It may mean the thing signified, the Body and Blood of Christ. Or it may mean both together as when the Lord,s Supper is defined in the Church Catechism as having two parts. (In fact, it has three, as we have seen.) It is important that the sense in which the word is being used should always be explained. The consecrated bread, the outward sign of the Eucharist, is often called the "Host" (hostia is the Latin for "victim").
The Anglican churches reject the theory of Transubstantiation (in what sense, we shall see in the next chapter), and the theory that the Eucharist is only a sign of Christian men,s profession (Article 28). Otherwise the doctrine of the Eucharist is not defined. In this respect the Anglican churches agree with the ancient Church and with the Eastern churches, neither of which has defined any doctrine of the Eucharist as necessary to salvation. For the Eucharist is a mystery which cannot be fully understood, and all attempts to define it have ended by emphasizing one aspect of it above another.
The following are different aspects of the Holy Eucharist:
1. Thanksgiving, from which it is called Eucharist.
2. Commemoration of our Redemption; so it is called the Lord,s Supper.
3. Offering of the one perfect Sacrifice, from which aspect we call it the Liturgy or the Mass.
4. Communion with our Lord and with each other.
5. Mystery, in which all the others are united: :LFJZD4@< is the Greek word corresponding to Sacrament.
[Page 361]
This rubric first appeared in the Prayer Book of 1552 which was never properly authorized. It was removed in 1559 and replaced in a modified form (corporal being substituted for "real and essential") in 1662. It is called "black" because it was printed in black letters, though all the other rubrics were printed in red letters. It makes two statements which are hardly tenable by any modern intelligent person, for it says that Christ,s Body is "natural", whereas it is, since the Resurrection, not natural but spiritual (I Cor. 15:44); and it says that Heaven is a place, and that Christ,s Body cannot be in more places than one, which is an intolerably materialist conception of Heaven. Fortunately we are not bound by the teaching of this rubric. It is an interesting fact that in 1718 this rubric was the only part of the Anglican formularies about the Eucharist which Cardinal de Noailles and his French divines could not accept.
The Anglican Communion is not committed to any particular doctrine of the Eucharist beyond what was said in the last chapter. No such doctrine can be proved from Scripture. No such doctrine has been defined by the Universal Church. The outward visible signs, the bread and wine, are really bread and wine. The Body and Blood of Christ are really the Body and Blood of Christ. To deny either truth is "to overthrow the nature of a sacrament". That is rejected by the Anglican Communion, and that alone.
Many theories of the manner in which the sacramental gift is bestowed have been put forward. We must know the chief ones if we are to understand the history of the Church, but none of them is entirely satisfactory. Readers who are not interested in these theories had better pass on the next chapter.
[Page 362]
First there are the theories which agree with the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence. The most famous of these is Transubstantiation.
Latin Christians in the Dark Ages who could not understand philosophical distinctions took our Lord,s words quite literally. They held that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist was His material Body miraculously concealed from our senses in order that we might not be shocked by seeing that we were eating human flesh. This is called Capharnaism.
Hence arose the legends of bleeding Hosts, Hosts which turned into a Child in the priest,s hand, etc. Berengarius was compelled in 1059 to sign a recantation declaring that the Body of Christ was ground by the teeth of the faithful.
Medieval thinkers, in order to get rid of this materialist doctrine without rejecting the traditional belief of the Church, devised the theory of Transubstantiation. According to the philosophy then generally accepted, which was based on Aristotle, everything that exists is composed of "substance" and "accidents". The accidents are the qualities or attributes. The accidents of wine are that it is red, sweet, liquid, alcoholic, etc. The substance is that which makes it to be what it is, and nothing more can be said about the substance. No one can see or touch the substance of wine, for visibility and tangibility (the power to be seen and touched) are among its accidents. The theory was that at the consecration the "accidents" of bread and wine are not changed, but the "substance" is converted into the "substance" of the Body and Blood of Christ. It was a very brilliant theory which soon came to be generally accepted and was defined as a dogma by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), though it seems that the Council did not discuss it or even pass it but simply accepted it from Pope Innocent III. The words were: Jesus Christ, whose Body and Blood are in the sacrament of the altar truly contained under the appearances of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into His Body, and the wine into His Blood.
It was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent. The definition is as follows: "The body and blood together with the soul and the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ are truly, really, and substantially in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, and the conversion of the whole substance of bread into the body, and of the whole substance of wine into the blood, takes place, which conversion the
[Page 363]
Catholic Church calls transubstantiation" (Creed of Pope Pius IV).
The Greek term corresponding to transubstantiation is metousiosis which, however, is not bound up with the scholastic theory of substance and accidents. It was accepted by the Synod of Bethlehem, 1672, during the reaction against the Calvinizing movement of the Patriarch Cyril Lucaris, but it was never accepted formally by the Russian Church and is not a dogma of the Orthodox Communion.
Transubstantiation is rejected by the Anglican Communion on the ground that "it cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions" (Article 28). The last three criticisms apply rather to the popular teaching of Transubstantiation than to its official definition, and many Anglican theologians have admitted that Transubstantiation properly understood is a tenable opinion, even in the Church of England, but not a dogma. Certainly this Article does not deny that the consecration effects a change in the elements (which, as we have seen, is the teaching both of the Prayer Book and the Articles), but only that the change is such as to overthrow the nature of a sacrament.
The objections to the theory of Transubstantiation are these:
It cannot be proved by Scripture and therefore cannot be accepted as a dogma, whatever may be its value as an opinion. There have always been those who have accepted all that Scripture teaches without accepting Transubstantiation. It is not, therefore, a necessary inference from Scripture like the Homo-ousion and the Theotókos.
Transubstantiation requires us to accept the medieval theory of "substance" and "accidents". This is a possible theory, but it is not part of the Christian faith; and most modern philosophers will have nothing to do with it, but maintain that there is no such thing as "substance" in this sense. However, some theologians say that those who believe in Transubstantiation are not committed thereby to the medieval philosophy. This may be true, but the Roman Communion requires the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas to be
[Page 364]
taught in all its colleges and disapproves of any other, from which it seems that those who accept Transubstantiation can hardly avoid the medieval philosophy.
John Wycliffe criticized Transubstantiation on the ground that on this theory the accidents of bread and wine have no substance in which to inhere, for the substance of the bread and wine has been annihilated. There is no other case of this, and therefore it must be regarded as miraculous. While we ought to be willing to believe miracles for which there is sufficient evidence, there is no evidence in Scripture or anywhere else that there is any miracle in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation requires a miracle, or rather a series of miracles, for not only must the "substance" be annihilated, but it must be restored afterwards, neither of which processes could take place without a miracle. Therefore Transubstantiation is not a satisfactory theory.
Bishop Gore1 pointed out that even according to the strict interpretation of Transubstantiation, the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine properly speaking since only the accidents of bread and wine remain; and that this theory corresponds to the Christological theory of the Monophysites, that our Lord,s human nature was not really human when united to His Godhead but only apparently so. The Fathers compared the two parts of the Eucharist to the Godhead and Manhood of our Lord. If this be true, Transubstantiation is a form of the heresy of Eutyches who taught that the Manhood of our Lord was absorbed by His Godhead.
The opinion held in some quarters that the Church of England could promote the reunion of Christendom by accepting Transubstantiation is a mistake. We cannot promote reunion by asserting what we do not believe to be true, and the great majority of members of the English Church do not believe that Transubstantiation is true. But even if we were all agreed that Transubstantiation was not only tenable but true, the Church of England could only accept it as an opinion; for to accept it as a dogma would infringe the fundamental principle, to which every Anglican priest pledges
1
Dissertations, pp. 229-289.
[Page 365]
himself at his ordination, that nothing may be taught as a dogma which cannot be proved from Scripture. We must maintain our freedom to deny whatever is not part of God,s revelation. In any case even the acceptance of Transubstantiation as a dogma would not bring about reunion with Rome from which we are divided by more fundamental differences, as we have seen (Chapter 50), and would hinder reunion in other directions.
Transubstantiation was intended to get rid of Capharnaism, but it has not been successful in doing so. The recantation required of Sir John Cheke, under Queen Mary I, was as material and carnal in its doctrine as that which was required of Berengarius nearly 500 years earlier. That this danger has not ceased even now is shown by the following incident. Some years ago in Ireland I met a priest of the Roman Communion who began to argue with me about the Holy Eucharist. I read him the Prayer of Humble Access to show him that we believed in the Real Presence. He said, "But you believe that it is a spiritual presence, don,t you?" I answered, "Surely you don,t believe that the Host is the flesh of Christ in the same sense as my hand is my flesh?" "Yes, I do," he said; and I replied, "I am sure St. Thomas Aquinas did not"; upon which he changed the conversation!
It seems impossible to prevent people from taking "substance" in its popular rather than in its philosophical sense. For this reason Transubstantiation has brought disunion rather than agreement. It is a bugbear to many people who do not know what the word means; and since it is objectionable both to the learned and the unlearned, we shall do well to avoid it.
Consubstantiation is the theory of Luther that the substance of bread and wine is partly changed and partly remains the same. It cannot be proved by Scripture, and it depends upon the medieval theory of "substance" and accidents". The Lutherans do not regard it as a dogma, but they would not unite with any communion whose doctrine of the Eucharist did not satisfy them. It is for this reason that the Swedish Mission in South India would not join the scheme of union proposed by the Anglican dioceses, the South Indian United Church, and the Methodists.
[Page 366]
Ubiquitarianism the theory that our Lord,s Manhood is omnipresent and therefore in the sacrament was held by some Lutherans but is contrary to the doctrine that our Lord,s Manhood is real manhood and therefore cannot be omnipresent.
We now turn to the theories of those who reject the doctrine of the Real Presence that is, that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.
Virtualism, the theory held by Cranmer and Waterland, is the theory that what we receive is not the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ but its virtue or power. We receive the outward sign and the effect but not the Body and Blood themselves. This theory has been held by many in the Anglican Communion but does not seem to be consistent with the teaching of the Church Catechism that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord,s Supper, still less with the word "given" in Article 28.
Receptionism is the theory that we receive the Body and Blood of Christ when we receive the bread and wine, but that they are not identified with the bread and wine which are not changed. The climax of the service is therefore not the consecration but the communion of the people. This was the teaching of Calvin.
The consecration is unimportant. It is of minor importance who the minister is, and Calvinists allow a layman to provide at their communion services in exceptional cases. The Calvinist liturgical forms have for the most part been very poor (see Y. Brilioth, Bishop of Växjö, Eucharistic Faith and Practice, pp. 171-198). The consecrated elements are not specially sacred any more than the water in baptism, and no provision is made for their consumption. Some passages from the Fathers are quoted in defense of this theory, but other passages from the same Fathers exclude it. The general teaching of the early Church gives no support to Receptionism, nor is it known in the Roman or Eastern communions. But it has been widely held in the Anglican Communion since the Reformation, and at some periods it has been completely dominant. As we have seen, it is not consistent with the word "given" in Article 28 or with the rubric directing the consumption of the consecrated elements. But
[Page 367]
it has always been regarded since the Reformation as a tenable opinion in the Anglican Communion.
The theory that the Lord,s Supper is no more than a bare commemoration of the death of Christ and a method of bearing witness publicly to the Christian Faith is commonly attributed to Ulrich Zwingli, but more properly to Socinus.
This theory is explicitly condemned by Article 28 and is contrary to the passages from the Prayer Book quoted above, though it was held by Benjamin Hoadly, Bishop of Winchester (1676-1761).
However, it is the theory held by many "Evangelical" sects whose communion service is not a Eucharist and appears to resemble rather the "Agapè" or love feast which followed the Eucharist in the early Church. (The Agapè survives in the "pain béni" or "antidoron" distributed after the Eucharist in the Eastern and some Latin churches.)
For this reason some denominations will admit to communion any one who claims to be a Christian.1 It is a sign of love and does not imply orthodox faith.
But in every part of the Catholic Church to receive the Holy Communion is to be accepted as a full member, which implies the observance of all that the Church requires of her members. For instance, no one may communicate in the Roman Communion who does not believe all the Roman doctrines, and rightly so. He who communicates at a Roman altar declares by doing so that he accepts the papal claims and the decrees of Trent and the Vatican. He who communicates at an Orthodox altar declares by doing so that he accepts the decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and all the teaching of the Orthodox Communion. He who communicates at an Anglican altar similarly declares by doing so that he accepts the teaching and the authority of the Anglican churches.
The refusal of the Church to admit to communion those who do not accept the Catholic Faith as taught by her is not due to want of
1
The Orthodox Eastern churches allow any Christian to receive the antidoron even though he could not be allowed to receive Communion. We have here, perhaps, a possible solution of the question of intercommunion. The Anglican churches might revive the custom of "pain béni" or antidoron in which Christians not in communion with the Church might be allowed to share.
[Page 368]
charity but to an intense sense of the importance of right belief and of church membership. Any one in the world may communicate at the altars of the Church if he will fulfill the conditions required. Those who will not accept the conditions cannot reasonably expect to be admitted to the privilege.
The Holy Eucharist is a sacrifice as well as a sacrament. Our Lord,s words "This is My blood of the covenant" (St. Mark 14:24) cannot be understood except in the light of the Hebrew sacrificial system.&