HOME
We come back to the differences between the Christian Churches.
As we have seen, they centre largely round the importance of the Sacraments,
and especially round the emphasis laid on the various aspects of the Holy
Communion.
The essential difference is between the view that the basis of the Sacrament of Holy Communion is the 'consecration' of the bread and the wine, and the view that the basis is the service as a whole, in which the sharing of the bread and the wine by the worshippers is a necessary incident.
The first view is held to imply two things:
first, that there must be a regularly ordained 'priest' to carry out the
act of consecration;
secondly, that by virtue of the consecration there is a definite change in
the 'substance' (an old philosophical term meaning something like 'value'
in modern English) of the consecrated elements.
The other view requires no more than the meeting together
by common consent of a company of the faithful.
No priest is necessary, nor is there any question of a change in the bread
and the wine, which are there merely to give the service its distinctive
character by enabling the worshippers to re-enact the scene of the Lord's
last supper with his disciples.
Both views, of course, carry the belief that Christ is 'really' present at
the service ;
but some consider that he is specially present under the form of the bread
and wine, while others do not hold this opinion.
There is, therefore, as we remarked earlier, a connection
between questions of Church organization and the question of the Sacraments.
The considerations brought forward in the last chapter suggest that, while
the idea of the Holy Communion as a memorial meal, shared by the worshippers,
is true and necessary, it does not cover the whole ground.
To grasp the full meaning of the Sacrament we need also to consider the bread
and the wine as effectual symbols, both of the life of Christ flowing into
us and of the death of Christ offered for our salvation.
If we accept this, we shall acknowledge the probability that God would see
fit to select and set apart special persons (priests) for the purpose of
conducting the service.
This would have the practical advantage that it would make it clear to all
when the Sacrament is (if the term may be properly used) the genuine article
and when it is not.
Further, we should find it difficult to believe that anybody not selected
and set apart by God for the purpose would be capable of assuming the tremendous
responsibility.
A person cannot elect himself or even be elected by his fellow-sinners to
such an office;
only God can give him the right to administer the Sacrament.
And so the sacramentalist Church tends necessarily to be
a Church with bishops and priests, who are themselves sacramentally consecrated
by God for their special task through 'ordination'.
The Churches whose worship is less concentrated on the sacramental aspect
of religion tend to be less highly organized and more 'democratic' in their
constitution.
It is reasonable to suppose that Jesus meant his Church to
be a single brotherhood, though not necessarily one in which absolute uniformity
of emphasis and worship would prevail.
It is also reasonable to suppose that the original Apostles were in the position
of 'priests'.
At first the need for a closely defined organization was probably not greatly
felt;
but when the original Apostles had died, and branches of the Church were
springing up all over the Roman Empire, an organization became necessary.
The organization of priests and bishops, based on the sacramental principle,
goes back a very long way into the primitive history of Christianity, and
was not seriously challenged until the Church was some fifteen centuries
old.
By that time grave abuses had grown up.
The priests abused their position and scandalized the ordinary Christian.
Exaggerated emphasis on the symbolic and sacrificial aspects of the Holy
Communion, condoned if not encouraged by the official leaders, led to superstition
and even idolatry.
The Reformation, in sweeping away these abuses, swung the pendulum right
over in the opposite direction.
Distrusting the Church, many Christians had
recourse to the Bible and their own consciences.
For many the priesthood
and the Sacraments had become a hindrance, rather than a help, to contact
with God.
Thus were born the jarring sects that survive to day.
It may fairly be asked why Jesus did not foresee this kind
of thing;
why he did not make provision against it by making the truth so clear that
his followers could not go wrong.
But there is no reason to doubt that he did foresee it, just as God, we must
suppose, foresaw when he created man that man would go wrong.
In this, as in everything else, God will not deprive men of their right of
choice:
that is never his way.
He is patient, and not limited by time.
Anyone who asks this question should go on to ask himself what (short of
compulsion) he could imagine Jesus doing, over and above what he did, to
ensure that his Church would remain united throughout all possible changes
and developments of history and discovery.
The practical question for us now is, whether there exists
to-day any one Church which is in fact the true Church of Christ, in which
the true faith is preserved without any addition or subtraction, and to which,
therefore, all the other Churches must eventually conform;
or whether the breaking up of the Church has been accompanied by a sharing
out, as it were, of the faith, so that each Church has a greater or less
share of the truth but none has its fullness.
In the latter case, we have to look forward to an eventual combination of
the present Churches into one Church, which will not be quite the same as
any of the existing Churches.
We must try to answer this question, because it is quite clear that, if the one true Church already exists, our plain duty is to join up with it.