HOME
The Church of England defines a Sacrament as:
'An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself.'
The Church of Rome defines a Sacrament as:
'An outward sign of inward grace, ordained by Jesus Christ, by which grace is given to our souls.'
It will be seen that there is not much substantial difference
between these two definitions.
The Church of England recognizes two principal Sacraments?
Baptism
and Holy Communion?
and it is only these two that we need to consider for the present purpose,
though the Church of Rome brings some other matters under its definition
of Sacraments.
It is hardly necessary to say that Baptism means the ceremonial
application of water to a person,
this constituting a rite of admission to membership of the Christian community.
The Holy Communion (for which there are several names, such as Mass, Eucharist,
Lord's Supper, and so forth) consists of the ceremonial eating and drinking
of bread and wine according to the commandment given by Jesus at his last
supper with his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion.
If the differences of opinion amongst the Christian sects
are examined,
it will be found that for most practical purposes they boil down to this:
are the Sacraments an essential part of Christianity,
or are they what have been called 'optional appendages'?
Between the two extremes of believing that the Sacraments do not matter
at all, and that nothing else matters, there is obviously room for many shades
of opinion.
While few Christians probably would stand openly for either extreme, there
is a distinct cleavage between those who regard the Sacra?ments as of major
and those who regard them as of minor importance.
On the face of it, to a modern mind,
there is much to be said for those who do not attach much importance to the
Sacraments.
Christianity after all is essentially a spiritual religion.
The emphasis is on prayer and on the contact of the soul with God.
Over and over again in the teaching of Jesus
stress is laid on the principle that it is not what one does
but the spirit in which one does it that counts.
Such observances as Baptism and Holy Communion seem, from this point of view,
to be superfluous and even inconsistent.
They look rather like primitive
pagan rites which have been incorporated with the pure Christian religion
to its disadvantage.
Washing with water, for instance, is an obvious and common symbol for cleansing
from impurity.
The ceremonial eating of 'the god' or of a sacrificial victim representing
the god, is a feature of pagan religions based on long-exploded magical ideas.
In particular, the whole framework of the rite is to a certain extent paralleled
by what we know of the Greek 'mystery' cults, which were in fashion in early
Christian times, and it is a fair assumption that it was from such a source
that the sacramental system found its way into Christianity.
Surely we, in the twentieth century, have outgrown this sort of childish
stuff.
As we found, however, in connection with the articles of
the Creed, the trouble with this sort of view is that, however simple and
attractive it may appear, it does not take account of the evidence and the
facts.
It starts from a preconceived idea of what Christianity is,
and then tries to explain the origin and existence of the Sacraments according
to that idea.
The reason?able course of action is not to decide first what we think Christianity
ought to be
and then manipulate the evidence to suit our decision,
but to study the evidence first and decide on the evidence what Christianity
in fact is.
If we do this, we find that the evidence for regarding the Sacraments as
an important and indeed an essential part of Christianity is overwhelming.
If we treat the evidence as unreliable in this matter, we may as well throw
overboard the whole of the evidence and Christianity along with it.
As for BAPTISM,
no-one who reads the New Testament could be left with any doubt that
FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES
CHRISTIANS REGARDED BAPTISM
AS AN ESSENTIAL INTRODUCTION TO THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY,
and that they were confident that in taking this line they were acting on
the express instructions of Christ himself.
The principal controversies have, however, centred upon the HOLY
COMMUNION.
We noticed earlier on, when dealing with the evidence for the Resurrection,
what great importance is to be attached to Saint Paul's First Epistle to
the Corinthians as an early and genuine piece of documentary evidence.
No one who reads the eleventh chapter of that epistle can
fail to admit that it shows conclusively
that at the time AD50-55 the Church firmly believed
that CHRIST HIMSELF INSTITUTED THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY COMMUNION,
commanding that the rite should be observed by his followers.
On top of this, we find practically the same account of the institution given
in the first three Gospels;
while Saint John, though not adding another account,
includes in his Gospel a mass of teaching (see especially chapter vi)
which is unintelligible except with reference to the Holy Communion.
Again, in the Acts of the Apostles,
we find frequent references to the 'breaking of bread'
as a clearly central feature of early Christian life and worship.
If we accept this weight of evidence in favour of this Sacrament
having been instituted by Jesus and regarded as important by his immediate
followers, we are bound to go further and conclude that it must be important
in itself.
It is sheer absurdity to suppose that Jesus would have wasted invaluable
time at the supreme crisis of his life in instituting an observance of no
real importance and significance.
It is almost equally absurd to suppose that his disciples would have so grossly
misunderstood him as to centre their worship round a rite that he had never
intended them to take seriously.
According to all the records, he gave very few positive directions indeed
about anything.
It is ridiculous to imagine that on one of the rare occasions
on which he did give such directions he did not take the elementary precaution
of making himself clear.
Obviously, then,
if Jesus -
that is to say, God -
attached importance to the Sacraments and gave positive instructions as
to their observance,
there is not much point in our complaining that they do not fit in with our
ideas.
We must make our ideas fit in with these facts.
Before considering what this means, it is worthwhile to pause
for a moment to look at the theory that the Sacraments were incorporated
into Christianity from the Greek 'mystery' religions.
It is evident,
first, that Christianity began as a develop?ment of Jewish, not of Greek
religion;
secondly that the Sacraments were well established within twenty to twenty-five
years of the Crucifixion.
The theory requires that within this short period the non-Jewish converts
to Christianity should have been in a position to introduce and to persuade
the original Jewish Christians to accept as a central feature of the faith
a set of ideas and observances which were no part of the original tradition
and were entirely pagan in character.
If anyone can believe that, he can believe anything.
If, then, we agree that the Sacraments are a genuine and
im?portant part of Christianity, we are bound to try to make out in what
their importance lies and what their function is.
We are told that they are 'signs' of 'grace'.
But this statement, while admirably concise, does not leave the ordinary
person much better informed than he was before.
By 'signs' we can no doubt understand 'symbols' to be meant;
but mere symbols could hardly matter enough to justify us in attaching all
this importance to them.
A symbol can, however, be more than a 'mere' symbol.
It can be an 'effectual' symbol,
a symbol which does something.
A postage stamp is an example of an effectual symbol.
In itself it is a scrap of coloured paper,
but it causes your letter to be taken to its address.
While no illustration can be complete or entirely satisfactory,
it is worthwhile to pursue a little this analogy of the postage stamp.
Of what is it a symbol?
Of the King, who himself is a sort of symbol of the whole power and organization
of the State, which, as part of its service to the community, carries your
letter.
What makes the stamp an effectual symbol?
Not anything that you do, but the decree of the Government.
Will any bit of paper do?
Of course not;
it must be the particular kind of bit of paper that the Government authorizes.
So in the more serious matter of the Sacrament,
we find the same sort of requirements.
A SACRAMENT IS A SYMBOL OF THE POWER OF GOD.
It is made so by his will and authority and not by the will of men.
He alone authorizes its use and observance.
It needs the proper means and the proper procedure to make it effective.
On these conditions it is not merely a symbol
but it does something.
BAPTISM IS THE SACRAMENTAL USE OF WATER
SYMBOLIZING THE CLEANSING OF THE SOUL FROM SIN.
But you do not baptize the baby every time you give it a bath.
The application of water becomes sacramental
only when it is done in the authorized way
and with the proper intention.
But when it is so done, then -
not by the will of the person baptizing or by the will of the person baptized,
but by the will and action of God -
it has a quite definite effect,
namely the admission of the person baptized into the community of souls
linked up to God through Christ and shar?ing in his divine life.
This does not mean that Baptism is the only way in which
a soul can be brought into touch with God.
To suppose this would be to place a quite gratuitous limitation on the power
of God, and to picture him as taking up a grossly unfair attitude towards
those human beings who have not the opportunity of being baptized.
There
are, after all, plenty of ways of getting your letter delivered as well as
putting a stamp on it.
But they are, in general, more troublesome, more expensive, and more risky.
Posting it is the normal way,
and similarly there can be no doubt that God has intended
Baptism to be the normal way by which souls are introduced into the Christian
community.
People who deliberately reject God's normal way and act on their own
ideas are clearly taking a grave risk.
In the same way,
when we come to consider the Holy Communion,
we shall find that our thoughts are simplified if we keep in mind that it
is not what we believe or guess that matters, but what Jesus (that is, God)
intended and intends the Sacrament to mean for us.
We take it for granted that he intends it to mean something, and that this
something is a thing of real importance.
The key phrases are:
'This is My Body.'
'This is My Blood.'
' Do this in remembrance of Me.'
TWO STATEMENTS
AND A COMMAND.
In these statements Jesus did not say,
'This represents my body and blood'.
What he said was,
'This IS my body and blood'.
Obviously, in a literal sense, it wasn't:
in what sense, then, were his statements true?
The reasonable answer is that the statements meant,
'This has the same value, or effect, as my body and blood'.
In other words,
the bread and the wine were, and would be,
so often as the sacramental act was repeated,
effectual symbols of his body and blood.
In trying to work out the meaning of all this, we cannot
do better than assume that, the richer and more varied the significance
we can find in it, the nearer we are likely to approach to the truth.
Let us begin with the simplest and least controversial explanation, and build
up on that.
It is clear that Jesus meant the Holy Communion to be a memorial
of himself.
So much is obvious from the command, 'Do this in remembrance of Me.'
All Christians would agree about the memorial significance of the rite.
Some would stop at that:
but most feel that this is unsatisfactory.
It leaves us in the dark as to why Jesus chose this particular form of memorial.
There, were, after all, many other ways in which he could have arranged for
his memory to be kept alive -
it might even be sug?gested that there were many more suitable ways -
if that was all that he had in mind.
Anyone can think of half a dozen.
The memorial theory does not account for those startling statements about
his body and blood?
statements which, it must be remembered,
were at least as startling to the Jews of his time as they are to us to-day;
probably even more so.
(Saint John records in his Gospel that, at an earlier stage, when Jesus spoke
publicly about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, many of his followers
found this 'an hard saying', and after that went back and walked no more
with him.
And he did nothing to meet their objections by saying that he only
meant it figuratively, or anything like that.
Rather than compromise, he
let them go.)
We pass on, then, to the idea of the eating and drinking
of the bread and the wine as symbolizing the spiritual nourishment of the
soul by the divine life.
It is entirely reasonable to suppose that Jesus meant,
by his identification of the bread with his body and of the wine with his
blood,
that the bread and the wine were to become,
effectual symbols of his own life and strength;
and that his followers,
receiving the Holy Communion,
would thereby through the power of God receive spiritual life and strength.
But this is not the end.
He made it clear that the broken bread symbolized his body which was to be
broken;
the out?poured wine his blood that was to be shed.
The institution of the Holy Communion was definitely linked up
with the death that he was to suffer on the following day.
Saint Paul says that the rite 'shows forth the Lord's death.'
When, in Chapter VIII, we were considering the significance
of that death,
we saw that, by virtue of Christ's self-sacrifice,
the human race in general was reconciled to God,
and that we, by associating ourselves with that sacrifice, can share in that
reconciliation.
Now we can see that the means by which we can so associate ourselves -
not the only means,
but the means provided by God as the normal means -
is participation in the Holy Communion,
through which we are enabled to share in the sacrifice of Calvary.
For, while that sacrifice, once made in time, cannot be repeated in time,
yet in eternity it exists con?tinually, like every other event.
In the Holy Communion God has provided us with an effectual symbol,
which we can use, at any point of time,
to bring ourselves into direct contact and relation with the eternal sacrifice
of Jesus Christ.
We have sketched out, very crudely and baldly, the principal
aspects of the Sacrament of the Holy Communion.
It is of first-class importance
to notice one fact that applies to the Sacrament under any and all of these
aspects.
It is always a matter in which the individual is concerned not only
as an individual but also as a MEMBER OF A COMMUNITY.
There must always be two or three gathered together,
or the Sacrament is not complete.
A priest cannot celebrate the Rite unless at least one other person is present.
Just as the mere application of water does not constitute
the Sacrament of Baptism, so the mere eating of bread and drinking of wine
does not constitute the Sacrament of Holy Communion.
No Christian, whatever his views on other matters, could deny that the Sacrament
becomes a Sacrament only when the necessary act is performed in the right
way and with the right intention.
In this sense it may be said that the faith of the worshipper makes the Sacrament
effective.
Yet it does so, not in virtue of any power in the worshipper, be he priest
or layman, but simply and solely because God has chosen to lay down these
conditions.
A Sacrament is NOT MAGIC.
The essence of magic is that by certain words or actions the magician is
supposed to have the power of controlling the unseen influence.
THE ESSENCE OF A SACRAMENT IS THAT IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD,
which he has willed us to receive, provided that we follow the rules that
he has laid down.
This does not, of course, mean that God has limited himself to giving those
gifts only under particular conditions.
But with Holy Communion, as with Baptism, he has provided a normal channel
of communication, and we try other methods at our peril.