CLOSER COMMUNION

The Sacraments in Scripture and Tradition

by CLIFFORD KEW

Thou Shepherd of Israel, and mine,The joy and desire of my heart,

For closer communion I pine,I long to reside where Thou art

SALVATIONIST PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES, LTD,JUDD STREET, KING’S CROSS, LONDON WCIH 9NN

ERI

F

DNADO

OL

B

EH

T YM

R

ANOITAVLAS

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1. SUBSTANCE OR SHADOW? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. NO CONFIDENCE IN ANYTHING EXTERNAL . 7

3. THE DEAFENING SILENCE—(i) BAPTISM . . . 11

4. THE DEAFENING SILENCE—(ii) THE RITUALMEAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5. WHICH BAPTISM? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6. THE ‘REAL PRESENCE’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

7. NOT BINDING ON OUR CONSCIENCE. . . . . . . 41

iii

© The Salvation Army 1980 First published 1980

Reprinted 1986 ISBN 0 85412 4810

MAJOR CLIFFORD W. KEW, MA,

became a Salvation Army officer in 1957. After serving as acorps officer in the United Kingdom he was appointed to theteaching staff of Mazoe Secondary School, Rhodesia (nowZimbabwe) in 1968, becoming Vice-Principal in 1971. Hehas served in the Literary Department, InternationalHeadquarters, since 1972, as Editor of Bible Manuals, asSecretary for Missionary Literature, as Editor of TheSoldier’s Armoury, and as Editor of The Officer magazine.He then served at the officers’ training college of the UKTerritory, and retired in 1996.

The Major is author of The Good Life (studies of scripturalholiness), To Tell the Truth (on John’s gospel) and QuestionTime (Lent studies in Matthew’s gospel co-authored with hiswife Maureen). He also edited a collection of essays onCatherine Booth—Her Continuing Relevance.

NB An earlier book referred to in this volume is TheSalvationist and the Sacraments by William Metcalf,published by the Missionary Literature Section of theInternational HQ of The Salvation Army, 1965.

ii

1 Substance or Shadow?PERHAPS the most important difference between TheSalvation Army’s way of worshipping and that of manyother religious denominations is that it does not usecertain fixed ceremonies or ‘sacraments’ which othersregard as necessary. The Catholic and Orthodox branchesof the Church list seven such sacraments— baptism,confirmation, eucharist, penance, anointing (extremeunction or ‘last rites’), ordination and matrimony. TheProtestant Churches, however, recognize as sacramentsonly two of these—baptism and holy communion(eucharist), though even within Protestantism there is agood deal of disagreement about how they should beused. In this book, our consideration will be limited tothe two ‘Protestant’ ceremonies.

‘Sacrament’ is not, of course, a biblical word. Itsorigin is found in the Latin word sacramentum whichreferred to a legal oath or solemn promise. It might beused of a soldier taking an ‘oath of allegiance’, or evenrefer to a deposit paid into court by a litigant whothereby bound himself to abide by the verdict handeddown by the court.

In the Vulgate—Jerome’s Latin translation of theBible, accepted as the ‘authorized version’ of the earlyRoman Church—this word is used to translate the Greekword musterion, which did not carry the same meaningas the modern English word ‘mystery’, ie somethingsecret to which the key has not been found. In the NewTestament musterion had a more restricted meaning—that which was formerly unknown and can now be knownonly by revelation. (See Ephesians 1:9; 3:3,9; 5:32;Colossians 1:27 and 1 Timothy 3:9,16 for examples ofthe use of the word.)

1iv

The Salvation Army has never said that it is wrong touse sacraments, nor does it deny that other Christiansreceive grace from God by using these aids to worshipand Christian living. What Salvationists do say is thatsacraments can be valuable only so long as their users donot rely on the observance of the ceremonies instead ofon the Holy Spirit.

The Army itself might be said to have its own‘sacraments’—eg the public sign of surrender to Godwhen a penitent kneels at the Mercy Seat; the swearing-in of a soldier under the flag; or the dedication of a childby its parents. These are all outward signs with innerspiritual meaning, and they also may be dangerous ifregarded as anything greater than symbols of the inwardacceptance of grace.

The Army’s position, then, is: (a) that none of theseways of receiving grace or blessing from God (includingthose used by The Salvation Army) is essential tosalvation or to Christian living; (b) that these are onlyoutward signs of an inward experience, which is thereally important thing; (c) that the full measure ofChristian experience may be received by other means;and (d) that there are disadvantages to the use of thetraditional sacraments which have caused The SalvationArmy to cease to use them in its form of worship (seechapter 7).

Salvationists feel also that they, with the Society ofFriends (the ‘Quakers’), are a reminder to the wholeChristian Church that it is possible to live a holy lifewithout the use of particular sacraments. This, however,places upon them the responsibility to prove this claimin their own lives, a responsibility which should savethem from adopting a self-righteous stance in theiromission of the traditional sacraments from theirpattern of worship.

Many Christians would argue, however, that the

3

Thus we may regard the modern use of the word‘sacrament’ as indicating some mysterious means bywhich God communicates grace (the blessed andundeserved influence by which He creates and sustainsspiritual life in believers). This process cannot beunderstood by ‘outsiders’, but only through revelation byGod and faith on the part of the believer. Traditionally,the word ‘sacrament’ has been applied to outwardceremonies which are deemed to be necessary to thecommunication of such grace. But are such outwardceremonies essential to grace?

The clearest, and perhaps the only, definition ofworship given in the Gospels is: ‘God is spirit, and thosewho worship him must worship in spirit and in truth’(John 4:24).* To worship God, we may conclude, theonly essentials are that we are aware of His presence inour inner being, and that we want to know all we canabout Him because we realize that in Him is the wholetruth about life. That is, worship necessarily involves ourminds and our spirits; it does not necessarily involvethings, including physical symbols or ceremonies. Thiswhole passage (John 4:19-26) shows that true worship isnot to be restricted to particular places or particularmodes of worship.

Nevertheless, human minds are finite and men do finddifficulty in understanding theological concepts withoutusing things to represent their spiritual relationship withGod. Therefore they have usually used aids to worshipwhich are pictures-in-action of what is happening withinthemselves. It was Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430)who first gave the classic definition of a sacrament as ‘anoutward and temporal sign of an inward and enduringgrace’.

*Scriptural quotations are from The New English Bible unlessotherwise stated.

2

It is not to be assumed, therefore, that the Army’sposition is a negative one, merely countering thearguments of others in order to justify its own practice,though, of course, Salvationists may have to clear theground of false assumptions made by others before theyare free to build their own beliefs and practices on thatfoundation of which 1 Corinthians 3:11 says: ‘There canbe no other foundation beyond that which is already laid;I mean Jesus Christ himself.’

As a Movement the Army has rightly been moreconcerned with what is included in its worship than withwhat is excluded, but increasing contacts with otherdenominations make it necessary for its members to beaware of the strong arguments which can be produced infavour of the non-sacramentalist position.

Further, The Salvation Army does the Church at largea service when it asserts that no Christian should besatisfied with mere ceremonial observance. To quote theArmy’s Handbook of Doctrine: ‘It is certain that thedischarge of essential Christian obligations requires morethan a ceremonial recognition. Such vital requirements ascommunion with God in prayer, the constant receiving ofHis grace, open confession of Christ, the proclamation ofHis gospel, and the need to demonstrate the unity andfellowship of His disciples, cannot be fulfilledsymbolically, nor by activities that are confined to thesanctuary.’

Nevertheless, in stating the reasons for the non-observance of the sacraments of baptism and theeucharist, Salvationists must ensure that they cling all themore tenaciously to the positive spiritual experiencewhich those two ceremonies may be used by others torepresent. As The Sacraments—the Salvationist’sViewpoint puts it, every Salvationist should intensify ‘thesearch for the substance of which all… symbolism is

5

sacraments of baptism and holy communion are essentialbecause Jesus commanded their use, and commandedtheir use for all time. Had He in fact done so, thenSalvationists would have to observe these sacraments, forthey claim that the Bible is the ‘rule of Christian faithand practice’. In fact, as will be argued in chapters threeand four, there are very few reliable New Testamentreferences to these practices, and even fewer (if any)which show an intention on the part of Jesus, or even ofthe Early Church leaders, that they should become fixedceremonies to be used for ever.

In this connection, Dr T. R. Glover (Conflicts ofReligions in the Early Roman Empire) states: ‘There is agrowing consensus of opinion that Jesus instituted nosacraments.’ And the pro-sacramentalist A. J. B. Higginsin his study in biblical theology (The Lord’s Supper inthe New Testament) states: ‘We cannot really be certainwhether Jesus in so many words enjoined the repetitionof what was done at the Last Supper.’

The eminent German theologian Emil Brunner writes:‘The “where two or three are gathered together in myname, there am I in the midst of them” is still valid andreal where there is no celebration of the Lord’s Supper....The decisive test of one’s belonging to Christ is notreception of baptism, nor partaking in the Lord’s Supper,but solely and exclusively a union with Christ throughfaith which shows itself active in love.’

The Baptist Professor H. H. Rowley writes: ‘Whatmatters most is not that a man has been voluntarilyimmersed, any more than that he has been baptized ininfancy, but that he has truly died with Christ and beenraised again to newness of life in Him.... The symbol isworthless without that which it symbolizes.’

Such statements are typical of many others that couldbe quoted from scholars who are certainly not seeking todisparage the use of sacraments in the Church.

4

2 No Confidence in Anything ExternalTHE first chapter stated that this examination of beliefsabout, and use of, sacraments is not prompted by anegative or destructive spirit, but is undertaken in orderto ‘clear the decks’ of the false assumptions which havehistorically grown up around this subject. We will thenbe able to come to positive conclusions which maygovern our own thoughts and actions.

If this is not done Salvationists may have asubconscious guilt complex about the non-observance ofthe sacraments, even though they may accept the Army’sposition in practice. However, before looking at the twosacraments in detail, we should note the general biblicalattitude towards ritual ceremonies.

Both Old and New Testaments are agreed that thereceiving of grace does not necessarily depend on anytype of ceremonial, though ceremonies may be a meansof grace. The Bible writings and the subsequent historyof the Christian Church prove that such means of graceare subject to abuse, and that there tends to be a gradualdrift from their first purpose into a rigid ritualism, inwhich the symbol comes to be regarded as the reality, themeans becomes the end, and the spiritual reality is lostsight of. What was once a meaningful ceremony mayeasily become a meaningless observance for a latergeneration which has lost sight of the original spiritualreality.

In the Old Testament we can see that this happenedrepeatedly in such matters as circumcision, the use of theTemple, the Passover meal, and the whole sacrificialsystem. The people frequently lost touch with the Spirit

7

but the shadow’. We are to seek a totally sacramentalattitude to life:

So shall no part of day or night From sacredness be free:

But all my life, in every step,Be fellowship with Thee.

Horatius Bonar (The Song Book of The Salvation Army, No 4)

6

pians 3:5, ie brought up to observe the Law in itsminutest detail), he did not require, or even advise, theuse of ritual ceremonies. Indeed, the general tendency ofhis arguments is against their use—see, for example,Philippians 3:2-11, especially verse 3: ‘We are thecircumcised, we whose worship is spiritual, whose prideis in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in anythingexternal.’

Paul has much to say against requiring circumcision(‘the first great sacrament of Judaism’) as a condition ofmembership of the Church, or as an essential for spirituallife. This may be seen in Romans 2:25-29; 4:1-12; 1 Corinthians 7:17-19; Galatians 5:2-6; 6:12-16;Colossians 2:11,13 (NB the phrase ‘not in a physicalsense’) and 3:9-11.

Passages of a more general nature which emphasizethe importance of spirituality as against ritualism andlegalism may be found in Romans 5:1,2; 8:1-16;14:22,23; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18; Galatians 2:16-21;3:29,13,14,24-29 (especially verse 3—‘You started withthe spiritual; do you now look to the material to makeyou perfect?’); 4:6-11; 5:18-25 and Colossians 2:6-23.

The epistle to the Hebrews clearly teaches that,because of the work of Jesus, much of the Jews’ceremonial was no longer necessary:

(a) The priesthood is replaced by our ‘high priest’—Jesus (7:20-26,28; 10:11-14,19-22). In practice, theadministration of the sacraments has usually led to themaintenance of an exclusive priesthood. The SalvationArmy does not accept the concept of priesthood in thatexclusive sense but believes in ‘the priesthood of allbelievers’, including women, who are still barred fromthe administration of the sacraments in many places.

(b) The sacrifices on the altar are replaced by Christ’ssacrifice of Himself (7:27; 9:9-15,27,28; 10:1-6).

9

of God, even though they were rigidly observing theritual requirements of their faith.

The prophets continually challenged the currentdependence on outward signs. See, for example, Psalms40:6-8; 51:17,19; Isaiah 1:10-17; Jeremiah 7:21-26;31:31-34 (where the ‘new covenant’ requires no outwardsigns); Hosea 6:4-6; Amos 5:21-27 and Micah 6:6-8.Prophecy, however, died out during the Exile, a priestlyelement in the religious life of the Jews becamepredominant, and the ritual aspects of religion werereemphasized. Early evidence of this can be seen inchapters 40-48 of Ezekiel, where material symbolism iscentral, and in the legalism of Ezra.

It was the chief contemporary proponents of this ritualand legalistic emphasis with whom Jesus in His day hada head-on confrontation, opposing them whenever Hesaw legalism and ceremony taking the place of thatreligious and spiritual reality which the symbolism wasintended to represent. For Jesus’ statements on thesubject, see Matthew 5:17-48; 12:1-13 (with Mark2:27,28); 22:34-40; 23:1-39; Mark 7:1-23 and Luke 18:9-14.

It would seem unlikely in the light of these passages(especially Matthew 23) that Jesus would havecommanded new ceremonies with similar dangers.

Moving on to The Acts of the Apostles, it is worthnoting that, when the Jerusalem Church gave judgementon what was to be required of non-Jewish converts toChristianity, no rituals were included in the essentialswhich ‘it seemed good to the Holy Ghost’ to require(Acts 15, especially verses 11 and 28, AuthorizedVersion).

The letters of Paul show how much he endorsed thisdecision. Though he could claim to be ‘a Hebrew bornand bred; in my attitude to the law, a Pharisee’ (Philip-

8

3 The Deafening Silence—(i) BaptismTHE word ‘baptize’ comes from a Greek word(baptidzein) which means ‘to dip’. In many religionsbathing has been used as a sign of spiritual cleansingand, in the time of Jesus, gentiles who wanted to becomeJews were baptized as a sign of repentance andconversion to the Jewish faith.

In the New Testament, at least five other kinds ofbaptism are mentioned, and it is important to know whichverses refer to which type. We shall find that manyreferences have little to do with the ceremony of waterbaptism as practised in the churches today, and thisshould help us to avoid unnecessary confusion.

1. John the Baptist’s baptism. This was different fromnormal Jewish baptism in that he included people whowere ‘born’ Jews. He told them that they, as well as thegentiles, needed to repent, and that they should not thinkthat they would enter the coming Kingdom just becausethey were ‘sons of Abraham’ (see Matthew 3:8,9).

2. The Christian ceremony of physical baptism. Thiswas the baptism of adult believers by dipping themcompletely under water (total immersion). Theaccompanying formula was ‘in the name of Jesus’, andonly much later ‘in the name of Father, Son and HolySpirit’.

We should note here that in various branches of theChurch other forms of baptism have been used; forexample, by sprinkling with water rather than byimmersion, and infant baptism as against adult baptism.These are not found in the New Testament and havebeen, and to some extent still are, the focus of muchargument among Christians. Infant baptism has often

11

(c) The ‘old covenant’ is replaced by a ‘new covenant’written ‘on their hearts’ (8:7-13).

(d) The sanctuary in Tabernacle or Temple is replacedby a sanctuary ‘not… made by men’s hands’ (9:1-8,24).

(e) What is now required from the worshipper is‘sincerity of heart’ and ‘assurance of faith’(10:22).

On this basis, is there any justification for abolishingcircumcision and the Passover meal, only to replace themwith baptism and holy communion?

There is a further strong argument against anydependence on ritual ceremonies in the silenceconcerning this matter of sacraments in most other NewTestament writings. If sacraments were central to thefaith and practice of the Early Church, surely we wouldexpect them to be of central importance throughout theNew Testament. Yet so often sacramental ceremonies arenot mentioned when one would expect them to bementioned if Jesus had really commanded theirobservance. Again and again the most important things inChristian faith and practice are listed, and again andagain there is no mention of the sacraments (eg Romans12:6-16; 2 Timothy 4:1,2,5; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Peter 4:7-11).The silence is deafening!

10

type 4 above), ie in the sense of undergoing a particularexperience (Mark 10;38,39; Luke 12:50).

The only places in the synoptic Gospels where Jesusappears to require baptism are: (i) in a late addition toMark’s Gospel (16:16), not included in earlymanuscripts and translations; and (ii) in a verse whichuses the words ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’, whichmany scholars believe Jesus would not have used at thattime (Matthew 28:19). Both these verses may thereforereflect the later customs of the Early Church rather thanthe thinking of Jesus Himself. There is no evidence inthe Acts of the Apostles that the second formula(‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’) was known and used.The words used were ‘in the name of Jesus’ or ‘theLord’ (eg Acts 10:48). Note further that even if the twocommands mentioned above (Mark 16:16 and Matthew28:19) are the original words of Jesus, water is notspecifically mentioned in either.

When Jesus sent out ‘the twelve’ (Matthew 10:1 to11:1) and ‘the seventy-two’ (Luke 10:1-16), He gave noinstruction to baptize, nor is there any report of theapostles having done so (Luke 10:17-20).

John’s GospelIn John 1:32-34 it is reported that John the Baptist

said that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit, incontrast with his own baptism in water, and though it issaid that Jesus Himself baptized in water at the beginningof His ministry (3:22, 23), this is contradicted (or at leastclarified) in the next chapter (4:2), where it is said thatonly His disciples did so. Even if Jesus did baptize onoccasions, He did not always do so. Therefore waterbaptism was not essential for those who wished to enterHis Kingdom. (It should be noted that there is no accountof Jesus’ baptism in John’s Gospel.)

When John quotes Jesus as speaking of being ‘born

13

been regarded by parents almost as a magical charm tosafeguard the child’s place in the Kingdom of God incase of early death, in much the same way as the Jewstrusted in being ‘sons of Abraham’.

3. Baptism with the Holy Spirit. This is a spiritualexperience rather than an outward sign.

4. Baptism into Christ’s sufferings. In many places‘baptism’ is used as a figure of speech meaning toundergo a certain experience and emerge ‘a new man’.

5. Proxy baptism for the dead. A believer would bebaptized on behalf of someone who had died withoutbeing baptized. Paul stated (in 1 Corinthians 15:29) thathe believed this to be a misuse of baptism.

* * *

Let us now study the New Testament references tobaptism with these different categories in mind.

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)Jesus showed that He supported the call to national

repentance, made by John the Baptist, by Himself beingbaptized, the ceremony of baptism being accompanied inHis case by a special sign that He was blessed by theHoly Spirit. However, when John protested that he wasunworthy to baptize Jesus, Jesus said, ‘Let it be so forthe present; we do well to conform in this way’ (seeMatthew 3:13-17), which suggests that baptism was notnecessarily to be a permanent practice. However, theimportant thing was not the use of water, but theexperience of the Holy Spirit within Him. John himselfsuggested that his baptism was not satisfactory andwould be replaced by a more spiritual baptism (Matthew3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16).

Jesus clearly used the word ‘baptism’ on occasion, notin the sense of water baptism but in a spiritual sense (see

12

Elsewhere in Acts ‘John’s baptism’ by water is shownto be unacceptable as the mark of a Christian. Only thebaptism with the Holy Spirit can make a completeChristian (11:15,16; 18:24-26; 19:1-7). There are otherinstances where water baptism is probably intended—2:41; 9:19 (with 22:16); 16:15,33 and 18:8—butwherever ‘baptism’ and ‘the gift of the Holy Spirit’ arementioned side by side (1:5; 2:38; 8:13-17), either theyare regarded as the same or Holy Spirit baptism is clearlyseen to be the more important. We may thereforeconclude that, though the pre-Christian custom of waterbaptism did, to some extent, continue in the EarlyChurch, the experience of the gift of the Holy Spirit wasnot dependent on water baptism and was regarded as ofmuch greater importance than the external ceremony.

The EpistlesThe practice of water baptism receives even less

support in the epistles. The statements concerningbaptism in Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians3:27; Colossians 2:12 and 1 Peter 3:21,22 seem certainlyto refer primarily to a spiritual experience rather than toan outward ceremony. Even if the outward ceremonytook place, the inward experience was what mattered.

In Hebrews 6:1-3 there is a reference to ‘cleansingrites’ which may include water baptism, but if so it isincluded in the ‘rudiments of Christianity’ (6:1) whichthe writer exhorts the Jewish Christians to ‘stopdiscussing’ (6:1) and ‘advance towards maturity’ (6:3).

In 1 Corinthians Paul seems to be activelydiscouraging water baptism. Verses 10-16 of chapter 1show that he considered it a divisive practice which hehad used only on rare occasions at Corinth, and verse 17makes it clear that it was certainly not the main feature,if indeed it was a part at all, of his own ministry. As was

15

from water and spirit’ (3:5), it is quite possible that bybeing ‘born from water’ He meant physical birth,especially as this is specifically mentioned in theprevious and following verses. Being ‘born from water’might well be a valid description of physical birth. Yetthis text has often been taken as the scriptural foundationof Christian baptism. In another verse of the samepassage (verse 8) there is no reference to water—just‘born from spirit’.

In other parts of this Gospel, ‘water’ is obviously usedas a figure of speech, eg 4:13,14 and 7:37-39. In thelatter passage John clearly states that Jesus is using thephrase ‘streams of living water’ to mean ‘the Spirit’.Even if the interpretation of ‘born from water’ asreferring to physical birth were to be rejected, is thereany reason for supposing that water is not being used tosymbolize spiritual life in chapter 3, even though it isclearly being used in this way in chapters 4 and 7?

Thus there seems to be no compelling evidence in thisGospel to require Christians to practise water baptism.

The Acts of the ApostlesEven when we come to the practice of the Early

Church, there is no strong evidence to prove that itrequired all Christians to undergo water baptism. Theceremony did take place without doubt, but only as auseful symbol of entering into new life. (The SalvationArmy is not against baptism as a sign, but only againstregarding it as an essential to becoming a Christian.)

It is worth noting that in Acts baptism is clearly shownto be water baptism in only two cases—8:36-38 and10:47,48 (with 11:16,17). In the latter case, baptism withthe Holy Spirit took place before the water baptism (10:44)and therefore cannot depend upon it. In contrast, Simon theSorcerer was condemned by Peter as unchristian althoughhe had already been baptized (8:9-24).

14

4 The Deafening Silence—(ii) The RitualMeal

THE sacramental ceremony of the Lord’s Supper is alsoknown in various churches as holy communion, theeucharist and the mass. Its historical foundation isusually thought to be in ‘the last supper’ held by Jesuswith His disciples. This, it would seem, was a Passovermeal, a pre-Christian Jewish celebration held annually toremind the Jews of the time when their ancestors escapedfrom slavery in Egypt (the Exodus).

In order to understand Jesus’ ‘last supper’ we need toknow what the pattern of the Passover meal was: (1) Thepresident of the group (including not less than 10 normore than 20 men) prayed at length, blessing the first offour cups of diluted red wine, which was then passedround. (2) All present washed their hands. (3) Eachperson took bitter herbs and dipped them in a dish ofvinegar and salt water. (4) The second cup of wine wascirculated. (5) One of the young boys asked questionsabout the meaning of the feast and the president of thegroup gave the answers (see Exodus 12:26,27; 13:8). (6) Psalms 113 and 114 were sung. (7) The main mealtook place, consisting of the roast lamb previouslysacrificed at the Temple, unleavened bread, and herbs in afruit sauce. (8) The third cup of wine was drunk. (9) Aprayer of thanksgiving was made. (10) The fourth cupwas shared. (11) Psalms 115 to 118 were sung.

We can now see how Jesus followed this pattern whileemphasizing certain elements of it and thus adding to itssignificance. He took the place of the father or presidentof the group. Instead of the washing of hands (2), Hewashed the disciples’ feet (John 13:3-17). The handing

17

noted earlier, chapter 15 contains a reference (verse 29)to the possibility of the misuse of the rite (proxybaptisms on behalf of the dead) which had alreadybecome an actuality at Corinth.

* * *

If, therefore, as is stated in Ephesians 4:5, there isonly ‘one baptism’, that surely must be baptism with theHoly Spirit. It is that ‘baptism’ that is the distinguishingmark of the Christian (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13).

That divisions and misuse in the matter of baptismhave occurred can be seen from the ensuing history ofthe Church (to which we shall return in chapter 5). If,therefore, there is no firm evidence that Jesus intended allChristians to be baptized in water, or that the EarlyChurch regarded baptism as essential to spiritualexperience and church membership, is it not an allowablecourse to seek the experience of Holy Spirit baptismwithout being tied to an external sign that can createserious difficulties? One anonymous Salvationist writerput it this way: ‘Baptism without water, but with theHoly Ghost, is far more scriptural than baptism withwater, but without the Holy Ghost.’

16

therefore omitted from the text of such moderntranslations as The New English Bible and some editionsof The Revised Standard Version. Other editions, and theGood News Bible, have footnotes stating that these wordsare not included in some manuscripts.

As far back as 1881 Westcott and Hort, in theirstandard text of the Greek New Testament, wrote: ‘Theevidence leaves no… doubt that the words in questionwere absent from the original text of Luke....’ If thiscommand in Luke 22:19 is not part of the originalGospel, it must be very doubtful whether it was actuallyan original statement of Jesus, especially as it is notfound in any other Gospel. If, for example, oneremembers that Mark is presumed to have been a ‘ghostwriter’ for Peter, it seems most unlikely that the carelessomission of what has since been taken to be a crucialcommand of Jesus would have been permitted in thatGospel. Yet the practice of this sacramental ceremonytakes its authorization from these few words in somemanuscripts of this Gospel of Luke alone.

Even if Jesus did speak these words, He might easilyhave meant, ‘In future think of Me at the Passover meal,instead of, or in addition to, remembering Moses and theExodus’ (see Exodus 12:14; 13:3,9). The words may havebeen directed to the disciples without being intended tobe observed by all Christians (Jews and non-Jews) for alltime. The Passover was an annual occurrence, and if anycommand was given it would surely have instituted anannual remembrance.

To quote William Barclay’s commentary on Matthew:‘The Last Supper was a real meal; it was, in fact, the lawthat the whole lamb and everything else must be eaten....This was no eating of a cube of bread and drinking of asip of wine. It was a meal for hungry men.... Jesus is notonly Lord of the Communion Table; He must be Lord ofthe dinner table too.’

19

of a piece of bread to Judas (Mark 14:18-21; John 13:21-30) and the reference to the broken bread as a symbol ofHis body (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19)probably refer to (7). Jesus’ reference to His Blood(Matthew 26:27-29; Mark 14:23-25; Luke 22:17,18)would come at (8) or (10). The singing of the psalms (11)is referred to in Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26.

There is, however, some doubt as to whether this wasa ‘proper’ Passover meal. Matthew, Mark and Luke firmlysuggest that it was, ie that it took place on the Thursdayevening (the start of the Passover ‘day’), but John says itwas ‘before the Passover’ (13:1), ie probably onWednesday evening, so that he links the Crucifixion withthe killing of the paschal lambs in the Temple onThursday afternoon (19:14,31). Because of the ratherhaphazard nature of the Jewish calendar we cannot evenbe sure on which day the festival began, but the importantthing is that the meal followed the Passover pattern.

* * *

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)Compared with Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts,

Luke’s seems rather muddled. In the passage as given inthe Authorized Version the cup of wine is mentionedtwice, the first time before the breaking of bread (Luke22:17,18), and the second time in apparent contradictionof Jesus’ earlier words that He would not drink wineagain until the Kingdom came (22:20). Some scholarshave concluded that Luke, or more likely a later editor,put alongside each other two traditional accounts of whathappened (22:15-19a and 22:19b,20) withoutharmonizing their inconsistencies. This view isstrengthened by the fact that in the oldest manuscriptsverse 20 does not appear, nor (in verse 19) do the crucialwords, ‘Do this as a memorial of me.’ These words are

18

Christ, nor at His Ascension, nor in the genesis of theChristian Church at Pentecost.

The community of Christians did meet together (2:42)‘to break bread’ (New English Bible) or have ‘fellowshipmeals’ (Good News Bible), no doubt as part of theirsharing of all their possessions (2:44-46; 4:32). Thesemeetings took place in private houses (2:46) and there isno suggestion of ceremonial (20:7,11; 27:33-38), or ofthe use of wine. ‘It was not a symbolic meal at which amouthful of bread and a sip of wine were taken, but areal meal’ (Maurice Goguel—The Primitive Church).

All that is recorded in Acts is a statement that theysometimes ate together in fellowship. Is it not remarkablethat in the records of the Church in Peter’s time there isnot one reference to the observance of the ceremony thatJesus is supposed to have instituted so recently? Is it notremarkable that in all the accounts of Paul’s travels wehave no record of an observance of the ceremony? Theonly possible, but by no means certain, exception is inActs 20:7, but there is nothing in the description topreclude the possibility that this was a simple commonmeal, preceded by a grace.

Remember too that this book is by the same writer(Luke) who wrote the only Gospel which has everincluded the words, ‘Do this as a memorial of me.’ IfLuke had in fact quoted a clear command of Jesus in hisGospel, would he not have recorded its being obeyed inActs?

The EpistlesNext we must look at 1 Corinthians, which also

includes the ‘Do this’ sentence (11:24). We need toremember that this letter was almost certainly writtenbefore the Gospels, and that the late inclusion of thesewords in Luke may in fact derive from Paul’s use here.

21

John’s GospelWhen we come to the much later Gospel of John we

find a noticeably different account. It seems as if Johnhas deliberately diversified the symbolism regarding theefficacy of Jesus’ life and death, perhaps to counter aritual concentration on bread and wine already evident inthe Church at the time when he wrote. Instead of thePassover bread, he speaks of ‘the bread of life’ inconnection with the feeding of a multitude (chapter 6).Instead of the wine, he speaks of Jesus as ‘the real vine’(chapter 15). Instead of the Passover bread and wine, hegives a lengthy account of Jesus’ discourse with thedisciples about the spiritual life (chapters 13-16), inwhich the symbolic act (13:3-17) is feet-washing, and theonly reference to bread is when Jesus hands the sop toJudas. Jesus says quite clearly, ‘You ought to wash oneanother’s feet’ (see 13:14,15,17). Why do Christians notobserve this command, and make of it a perpetualnecessity for Church members, if they do that with acommand that is less likely to be part of the originalwords of Jesus (ie ‘Do this as a memorial of me’)?

It is as if John is acknowledging the need forsymbolism, but after much reflection is saying, ‘Use asmany symbols as possible, so that you may avoid a ritualconcentration on one or two. And don’t take any of themliterally. It is their spiritual meaning which is ofparamount importance’ (see John 6:63). If we interpretliterally passages like John 6:26-35,48-58 or 7:37,38 wecompletely miss the writer’s point. Perhaps we shouldadopt an approach similar to John’s in reading thesynoptic accounts of ‘the last supper’.

The Acts of the ApostlesFurthermore in the Acts of the Apostles we find no

reference to instructions for, or observance of, a ritualremembrance—not in the appearances of the Risen

20

Church, a formula which Paul believed had the authorityof Jesus. Cullmann goes on to say that in other similarlyworded statements where instructions ‘from the Lord’ arementioned (l Corinthians 7:10,25; 9:14; 1 Thessalonians4:15) Paul is in fact referring to the accepted teaching of‘the body of Christ’, ie the Church.

It may well be that to correct the abuses mentionedearlier, Paul is here trying to bring about a new attitudeto the common meal, an attitude which will ensure thatthe food value of the meal becomes minimal and that itsspiritual value is emphasized. If so, this is a move awayfrom the material towards the spiritual, a move whichwe non-sacramentalists have carried to its logicalconclusion.

Therefore, the present observance of the Lord’sSupper may well owe more to the interpretation of Paulin this particular situation at Corinth than to anyintention of Jesus that it should be observed for alltime. Note the warning (1 Corinthians 11:29) that, ifanyone fails to recognize the meaning of the ceremony,he is condemned by his own attitude, ie the symbolismmust not be separated from the significance, whateverhappens.

‘Paul orders that the common meal is to cease being asatisfaction of hunger.... He thus initiated a process whichended in the separation of the eucharistic celebrationfrom the community meal’ (A. J. B. Higgins).

* * *

Having looked at those verses of Scripture which maybe regarded as relevant to this sacrament, we should notealso the very large proportion of the New Testament inwhich there is no reference whatever to this ceremony,which is so often thought to have been commanded by

23

Passover bread is spoken of in 5:6-8, but purely as afigure of speech. Then in chapter 10 there is more vividlyfigurative language which refers to those Israelites underMoses who were involved sacramentally in God’s chosenpeople and yet ‘God was not pleased with most of them’(verse 5, Good News Bible).

In 10:16,17,21,22 there are undoubted references to asacramental remembrance of ‘the last supper’, but theseverses teach that such observances must not, as theyeasily can, lead to spiritual arrogance and falseconfidence. We must not ‘sit down to a feast, and rise upto revel’ (see verse 7) in the belief that our sacramentalobservance safeguards us from judgement. ‘You will notescape because you have been duly baptized and havepartaken of the eucharist. There is no magical power inthe sacraments’(A. J. B. Higgins).

In the latter part of chapter 11 (verses 17-34), Paulcontinues to warn against the dangers of the sacramentalmeal. In Corinth the common meal had become an eatingoccasion rather than a worshipping occasion. Eachbeliever brought his own food with the result that somewere having a ‘slap-up’ meal while others were almoststarving (verses 20,21). The concept of sharing all thingshad been forgotten, and there is nothing worse than acommon meal where it is not ensured that everybody getsthe same. Some even became drunk (verse 21) at themeal. This brought into disrepute the whole idea of thecommon meal.

It should be noted here that in his description of theLord’s Supper (verses 24-26), which differs in somerespects from that in the Gospels, Paul says that histeaching on the subject came to him ‘from the LordHimself’, but he also states that it was a ‘tradition’ whichhe had received and passed on (verse 23). OscarCullmann suggests that Paul is not speaking here of adirect revelation, but of a formula current in the Early

22

5 Which Baptism?WE have already referred to Paul’s unenthusiasticpassage concerning baptism in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 (seepage 15) where baptism is linked to divisions in theChurch. He said that a Christian’s loyalty should be toJesus and not to any Christian leader, and in retrospectrejoiced that he had baptized only a very fewCorinthians. His comments were made probably aboutAD 55, but similar statements about the divisive effectsof baptismal practices could have been made at manystages of the history of the Church, as we shall see.

There was, however, a profitable by-product ofbaptismal procedures in the Early Church in that they ledto the development of creeds. From an early date baptismwas accompanied by the making of baptismal vowswhich included ‘a renunciation of sin and everythingassociated with demonic powers, idols, astrology andmagic; and a declaration of belief in God the Father, inthe redemptive acts of Christ’s life, death andresurrection, and in the Holy Spirit active in the Church’(Henry Chadwick, The Early Church). The ‘declarationof belief’ was often made in answer to doctrinalquestions, and often there was a threefold baptism, eachimmersion being preceded by a question about onemember of the Trinity.

As time went on, the period of preparation forbaptism was gradually extended (to as much as threeyears in many cases) and more thorough instruction indoctrine took place. Thus the doctrinal questioning led toa crystallizing of Christian beliefs into creeds, and theApostles’ Creed, for example, originated in a baptismalcreed used in Rome late in the second century. By the

25

Christ and to have been central to the Church’s worshipfrom the earliest times. The four letters to the Galatians,Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians; the three letters toTimothy and Titus (all of which are about Churchprocedure); the seven letters written by James, Peter,John and Jude; the letter to the Hebrews; and theRevelation are all silent on this matter. They musttogether heavily outweigh the evidence of one passage in1 Corinthians which, as we have seen, may have had onlya local and temporary application. It is also notable thatin Romans, which sets out to give the essence of thegospel, there is no mention of the Lord’s Supper.

We may therefore conclude that those who regard thesacraments as essential are looking back at Early Churchpractice through centuries of tradition, and may well bereading back into ancient writings practices about whichthey are already convinced and which they are alreadypractising, rather than trying to discover with fresh eyesand unbiased minds what actually happened.

‘The heart-searching question to which Salvationistshave always had to submit their lives is not: “Ought Iregularly to participate in the Lord’s Supper as areligious ceremony?” It has always been and is: “Is therea real communion between myself and my Lord? Do Ipossess His Spirit and do His will?”’ (The Sacraments—The Salvationist’s Viewpoint).

This Salvationist attitude is well expressed in one ofGeneral Albert Orsborn’s songs, which begins:

My life must be Christ’s broken bread,My love His outpoured wine,

A cup o’erfilled, a table spread Beneath His name and sign,

That other souls, refreshed and fed,May share His life through mine.

(The Song Book of The Salvation Army, No 462)

24

repents. This teaching was widely accepted, but was lateropposed by Novatian, a presbyter at Rome who split theChurch by his belief that those who had recanted underpersecution could not be forgiven and received back intothe Church. This schism, dating from 251, lasted until theseventh century. The Novatianists regarded sacramentsadministered by anyone other than members of their ownsect as invalid, and so they rebaptized those who wantedto join them from other sections of the Church. Theycalled themselves the Cathari (pure ones), a term whichwas used also of a heretical sect in the 12th and 13thcenturies.

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in North Africa from 249to 258, took a firm line on the matter of those who hadabandoned their Christian vows during persecution beingreadmitted to the Church (though he himself went intohiding during the persecution). Later he came intoconfrontation with Bishop Stephen of Rome (254-257) onthe question of whether those who had belonged toseparatist sects could be readmitted to the Church.Cyprian insisted that rebaptism was necessary, butStephen’s view was that baptism was valid whoeveradministered it (so long as it was in the name of theTrinity), the value of the ceremony lying not in theperson who administered it, but in itself. To this Cyprianretorted, ‘How can he who lacks the Spirit confer theSpirit’s gifts?’ Stephen argued that schismatics need notbe rebaptized but should be reconciled by the ‘laying-onof hands’. ‘The sacrament is not the Church’s butChrist’s,’ he said.

The controversy reached such a heat that Stephendenounced Cyprian as the Antichrist. Stephen died in257 and Cyprian was martyred in 258, but a similardispute arose in the Donatist crisis 55 years later, whenthe Donatists refused to acknowledge the CatholicBishop of Carthage because he had been consecrated by

27

fourth century it was the only baptismal confession inuse in the Western Church. (Converts who were martyredbefore their preparation for baptism was completed weredeemed to have had an effective ‘baptism in blood’.)

Nevertheless, differences concerning the details of theconduct of, and beliefs about, baptismal ceremonies soonassumed an importance disproportionate to the real valueof the ceremony, and thus became the cause of manydivisions in the Church. Originally, total immersion wasrequired (often out of doors in a river or lake), but fromearly in the second century baptism by sprinkling wasallowed in an emergency or in case of sickness. By theend of that century some people had come to believe thatbaptism had a magical effect, automatically washingaway sins irrespective of the state of heart of the personto be baptized. Also at this period exorcism and anointingwith oil found place in the baptism ceremony in someareas.

In the third century the ‘laying-on of hands’ by abishop was included in the service of baptism, togetherwith prayer that the believer would receive the HolySpirit. Child baptism (with faith supplied by an adultsponsor) was common by the middle of the century,though Tertullian of Carthage had earlier criticized it inhis On Baptism, the earliest surviving book aboutbaptism. In later life Tertullian joined the ascetic andadventist sect known as the Montanists, who believedthat serious sin committed after a believer had beenbaptized could not be forgiven (thus limiting theuniversal application of the gospel). Other sections of theChurch, in return, refused to acknowledge baptismscarried out by Montanists.

Callistus, an emancipated slave who became Bishopof Rome from 217 to 222, took a more moderate line,arguing that no sin is unforgivable if the sinner sincerely

26

teaching that rebaptism of those originally baptized byseparatist sects was unnecessary since it was in factChrist who really ministered to believers in thesacraments, even if the human ministers were unworthymen. However, he believed that the sacraments did notbenefit those who received them if they themselvesremained outside the Spirit’s unity and love.

Augustine also set out the doctrine of original sin,which at this stage included the idea that a man could beso evil that his will was unable to obey God’s commands.The only way the will could be freed to obey was by thegrace which came through baptism. This logicallyresulted in the belief that baptism was essential tosalvation and entrance into Heaven. Thus unbaptizedpeople, even infants, must go to Hell.

This belief led to an emphasis on infant baptism,especially as infant mortality rates were extremely high.Baptism was often carried out within minutes of birth,often by midwives and usually at a private ceremonyrather than in a church building. ‘Confirmation’ bylaying-on of a bishop’s hands was delayed till later in thechild’s life, and often neglected completely.

Therefore, the normal baptismal custom from the fifthcentury onwards became infant baptism, and adultbeliever’s baptism declined (in fact the Syrian Churchmade infant baptism obligatory), so that the practice ofthe Early Church was completely reversed, almost theonly similarity being the use of water.

Pelagius, a British monk, and even more his discipleCelestius, opposed Augustine’s doctrine of original sin.They believed that there can be no sin without personalchoice, and where there was no personal choice therecould be no sin. Adam’s sin was just a fatally badexample of disobedience, but did not bring sin or deathautomatically to men. So there was, he thought, no evilin newborn children. Therefore, children were baptized

29

one who had later failed under persecution. Like theNovationists, the Donatists consistently rejected thevalidity of sacraments other than their own.

From 313 the Emperor Constantine made Christianitythe favoured religion of the Roman Empire. Hedetermined that the Church must be united and orthodox,and therefore made an attempt to suppress the Donatists,an attempt which proved unsuccessful. Constantinehimself refused to be baptized until near the end of hislife (337), though he regarded himself as a Christianfrom 313 onwards. This delay in baptism was a commoncustom up to the beginning of the fifth century, itspurpose being to avoid mortal sin, since many believed,with the earlier Montanists, that there could be noforgiveness of serious sin committed after baptism. Thestep of baptism was therefore taken with greatseriousness.

During the fourth century baptismal ceremoniesgradually became more rigid in form. At Rome, forexample, all baptisms came to be conducted by thebishop, who now reached that position by a ladder whichhad to possess certain rungs: reader, acolyte (orassistant), subdeacon, deacon (not before the age of 30),priest (after five years as deacon), bishop (after 10 yearsas priest—and therefore at least 45 years of age).

Also in the fourth century the system of preparationfor baptism reached its peak. Instruction classes wereheld each year before Easter in the 40-day period laterknown as Lent. Those who were to be baptized spentHoly Week in a vigil and fast, and post-baptismalinstruction took place in the week following Easter.There were many local variations in custom, however. InMilan, for example, ceremonial foot-washing was part ofthe baptismal ceremony.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in North Africa from 396to 430, was a spiritual successor of Stephen of Rome in

28

Cathars delayed receiving this baptism till near death, asthe way of life demanded after baptism was exceptionallyrigorous. There was still, however, as far as they wereconcerned, an essential sign of spiritual baptism (ie thelaying-on of hands).

The doctrine of baptism was not one of the maintargets of the Reformation. Luther (1483-1546) remainedclose to the Roman Catholic position, though he reducedthe number of sacraments to three (including confession).He emphasized infant baptism, though he admitted that inthe New Testament adult baptism was regarded asnormal. He regarded total immersion as usual, though notessential, and believed that baptism conferred forgivenessof sins and regeneration, even in infants. The position ofAnglican reformers also showed quite a large measure ofcontinuity with the Roman Catholic position in thismatter.

In Zürich, Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531) pursued amore extreme course than Luther. He reduced the numberof sacraments to two and questioned the Romandefinition of the sacrament of baptism and even itsnecessity, thus reducing it to a sign not essential tosalvation. Thus he is one of the forebears of present-daynon-sacramentalists.

John Calvin (1509-64), of Geneva, did not go so far,though, like Zwingli, he restricted himself to twosacraments. He held to the belief that baptism (even ofinfants) brought about regeneration and the individual’sentrance into the new community of Christ, but limitedthis, as in all his teaching, to those who were predestinedto enjoy salvation.

Meanwhile, inhabitants of Zürich, for whom evenZwingli was too conservative, formed the ‘first freechurch of modern times’. In them originated the loosebut self-disciplined movement known by the nickname of‘Anabaptists’ or ‘rebaptizers’. This name reflected their

31

into sanctification and not for the remission of sins, andunbaptized children went, not to Hell, but to a ‘limbo’, aplace of vague happiness.

Pelagius was much misunderstood and muchmisrepresented by his followers and, at the Council ofEphesus (431), Augustine’s doctrine and practicetherefore won the day. However, agreement on baptismaldoctrine and practice was still not universal in theChurch. When, for instance, a later Augustine was madeArchbishop of Canterbury at the end of the sixth centuryand tried to reconcile the Celtic Church to Rome, one ofthe three stumbling-blocks was differing baptismalcustoms.

At the end of the Dark Ages, during which there waslittle change in the situation, Peter Lombard (1100-1160)reduced the number of sacraments from the 30enumerated by Hugh of St Victor, earlier in the 12thcentury, to seven which were deemed to have beeninstituted by Christ, and were not only, he said, ‘visiblesigns of invisible grace’, but also ‘the cause of the gracethey signify’. This scheme of seven sacraments wasconfirmed by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Laterin the 13th century each of the sacraments wassystematically defined by Thomas Aquinas (1225-74),who taught that the only requirement for the receiving ofgrace was for the sacrament to be performed. Baptismwas believed to be permanently indelible on the soul andtherefore unrepeatable. Aquinas’s definition was restated,in the face of the Protestant reformers, by the Council ofTrent (1545-63), and in essence remains the RomanCatholic position to this day.

The Cathar heretics of the 12th and 13th centuriespractised spiritual baptism, signified by a laying-on ofhands, believing this to be the baptism instituted byChrist. This, they believed, imparted the Holy Spirit,removed original sin, and ensured eternal life. Most

30

forms of religion and abandoned the use of the twosacraments.

Thus Salvationists may trace a slow movement,through the centuries, away from an interpretation ofbaptism as an essential and causal means of regenerationand entry to membership of the body of Christ, towards amore spiritual understanding of it as a sign that is notessential to salvation. Like the Quakers we haveabandoned even the sign, since, as Donald M. Lakewrites: ‘More often than not it has been the sacramentsthat have provided one of the greatest hindrances toachieving ecumenicity in spirit and form.’ Does not thehistory of baptismal beliefs and practices as traced in thischapter amply bear this out?

33

rejection of infant baptism and their custom of beingrebaptized as adult believers by total immersion. Thispractice of ‘rebaptism’ gave opportunity to the authoritiesto persecute them under the 1,000-year-old laws againstthe very different rebaptism by Donatists of convertsfrom other sects. Even other reformers joined the RomanCatholics in the persecution of Anabaptists, yetAnabaptism spread throughout Europe and eventually ledto the formation of the English Baptist Churches.

These English Baptists were all opposed to infantbaptism and practised a congregational form of churchgovernment. Some (the ‘Particular’ Baptists) wereCalvinists while others believed that all could be saved(‘General’ Baptists). The latter stemmed from acongregation of refugees in Amsterdam which was led byJohn Smyth, who baptized himself in 1608, presumablybecause he could not trust anybody else to do it properly.Part of this congregation later returned to England andformed the first English Baptist congregation atSpitalfields in 1612. The first ‘Particular’ congregation inEngland was formed at Southwark in 1638.

The Civil War and Commonwealth period marked theascendancy of Baptist influence (especially the‘Particular’ form). Up to this time baptism by pouring onwater (affusion) was often used, but in 1641 the‘Particulars’ readopted the rite of immersion, whichthereafter became predominant. By the 20th century,however, their Calvinistic outlook had been largelyreplaced, within the Baptist Union, by Evangelicalinfluences.

In the 17th century ‘Quakers’ (originally a term ofabuse like ‘Anabaptists’, and for that matter ‘Christians’)formed a Society of Friends under the leadership ofGeorge Fox. Fox had a deep suspicion of the external

32

(thanksgiving). This steadily became more formal inensuing centuries, partly under the influence of the‘mystery religions’ of the first and second centuries,which were marked by the use of secret symbols andrites. The fellowship meal (‘agape’ or ‘love feast’) washeld on Sunday evenings but gradually disappeared fromuse during the third and fourth centuries, one fifth-century Church council actually prohibiting its use.

This hardening in ritualistic observance of theeucharist probably coincided with the move from ‘housemeetings’ to meetings in public buildings provided forthe purpose of worship. The morning service fell into twoparts, the first open to all, but the eucharist beingrestricted to baptized believers.

The Didache (a teaching tract which probably datesfrom between AD 70 and AD 110) shows that set prayersand a two-tiered ministry (presbyter-bishops anddeacons) had already begun to develop at that early stage.This division is also seen in the first letter of Clement ofRome (at the end of the first century), who was of theopinion that the celebration of the eucharist was worthyonly when conducted by a bishop.

Ignatius of Antioch, who died about the year AD 115,placed high value on the eucharist as a means ofpromoting unity in the Church. He also taught that itmust be presided over by the local bishop. (At this timea bishop was just the superintendent minister in onetown.)

The eucharistic ritual was often misunderstood. Duringthe second century there were rumours that Christianswere cannibals because they ‘ate the body’ of Jesus.Sacramental worship could also expose Christians todanger of another kind. A pagan writer—Celsus (probablyabout AD 180)—spoke of Christians worshipping insecret, and mentioned the fact that even the

35

6 The ‘Real Presence’IN his Pelican history of The Early Church, HenryChadwick states that ‘the form and pattern of the actualrites used in the period before Constantine… can beknown only imperfectly from… fragments of evidenceoften contained in casual passing allusions’. However, itis clear, as we have seen, that even in Paul’s time misuseof the ‘common meal’, such as that referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, led to a separation of thesacramental and fellowship functions of the meal. Thesacramental function then began to develop into a ritual,something which possibly neither Jesus nor Paulintended.

The German biblical scholar Adolph von Harnackcommented: ‘Paul was the first and almost the lasttheologian of the Early Church with whom sacramentaltheology was held in check by clear ideas and strictlyspiritual considerations.’

Since Sunday did not become a holiday until theEmperor Constantine decreed it as such in AD 321,Christian Sunday services had to be held at first in theearly morning or in the evening. About AD 112 Pliny, theRoman Governor of Bithynia, wrote to the EmperorTrajan, explaining that the Christians ‘were in the habitof meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light,when they sang an anthem to Christ as God, and boundthemselves by a solemn oath (sacramentum)... afterwhich it was their custom to separate and then meetagain to partake of food, but food of an ordinary andinnocent kind’.

Thus the main service in the morning culminated inthe celebration of the Lord’s Supper or ‘eucharist’

34

used by some who interpreted the eucharist as a‘Christian sacrifice’ in which an offering was made toGod to gain forgiveness of sins.

The emphasis on a ritual presided over by a stratifiedpriesthood gradually separated clergy and laymen. In thethird century bishops began to be addressed as ‘Yourholiness’. In the fourth century the Greek Church startedto veil the altar so that the congregation could not see it.Next the congregation was deprived of the wine,receiving bread only. The use of candles and specialclothes for the priesthood then developed, and by theeighth century the wording of the mass (always in Latin)came to be recited in a low voice which was inaudible tothe congregation. The pomp of worldly governmentbecame reflected in the liturgy of the Church, andsometimes even doctrine and ritual became offensiveweapons to be used in the battles of Church politics.

During the fourth century there began to arise a beliefthat an actual change took place in the bread and wine.Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (about AD 315-86), wrote: ‘Iadjure you no longer to consider the elements as ordinarybread and wine, for in accordance with the very words ofChrist they have become His body and His blood.’ Thuswas born the doctrine which was later identified by theterm ‘transubstantiation’ (the belief that the bread andwine became the Body and Blood of Christ when thepriest consecrated them).

This doctrine was even more clearly stated in theninth century by Paschasius Radbertus, who declared thatthe real presence of Christ’s body and Blood werepresent in the eucharist. This belief was officiallyaccepted by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, in spiteof the insistence of Berengar of Tours and others that thechange was spiritual and the bread and wine remained ‘ofthe same substance’.

As we have seen (page 30), Peter Lombard and

37

smell of a sip of insufficiently diluted wine at theeucharist might lead to a Christian’s arrest.

By the middle of the second century, then, thecommon meal had been transformed into a ritual. ‘Acentury and a quarter were sufficient to transform thespontaneous act of Jesus at His last meal… into a rite inwhich the primitive Church expressed its faith, itsservices, its discipline’(Maurice Goguel).

About AD 150 Justin of Rome described theceremony (‘a memorial of the Passion’) in detail:

‘Then the president of the brethren is brought breadand a cup of wine mixed with water; and he takes them,and offers up praise and glory to the Father of theuniverse, through the name of the Son and of the HolyGhost, and gives thanks at considerable length for ourbeing counted worthy to receive these things at hishands.... Then those whom we call deacons give to eachof those present the bread and wine mixed with waterover which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and carryaway a portion to those who are absent.... For we do notreceive them as common bread and common drink; but asJesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by theword of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation.’

Origen (185-254) insisted that the ‘union with Christ’which took place was spiritual, yet there arose the beliefthat the elements became a sacramental food by whichworshippers could share the essence of God. Irenaeus,Bishop of Lyons about AD 180, concerned to counter theGnostic heresy that Jesus was not fully man, taught ‘thatthe eucharist contains an earthly and a divine reality’,and that there was ‘an altar in heaven’, thus in effectover-emphasizing the ritual aspects of the Lord’s Supper.For the same reason he laid stress on the Church’s‘tradition’. These ideas were developed in the thirdcentury. Old Testament ideas of a priesthood were

36

ceremony in worship. He believed the real presence ofChrist to be present in the eucharist and coined the word‘consubstantiation’. His successor, Philip Melanchthon(1497-1560), continued to claim that the Scripturesshowed that communion was more than just a memorial.

Zwingli, on the other hand, ‘shrank from the idea thatphysical objects might be vehicles of spiritual gifts’ and‘preferred to treat the sacraments rather as symbols andsigns… than as a means of grace’ (Owen Chadwick).Only faith could receive grace. With puritan-like zeal hecleared the churches of Zürich of medieval pomp andritual. In a great debate at Marburg (1529) Luther andZwingli were found to be irreconcilably and bitterlydeadlocked on the matter of the meaning andadministration of this sacrament.

John Calvin, ‘the great systematizer’, tried to bringreconciliation. He ‘rejected Zwingli’s idea that thesacrament of communion was merely a symbol; but healso warned against a magical belief in the real presenceof Christ’ (Andreas Lindt). He taught that there is a ‘realparticipation’ of Christ but that He ‘is not affixed to theelements’.

In 1547 the Council of Trent gave the Roman answer.Transubstantiation and the established medieval practiceswere upheld and the Council proclaimed that ‘thesacraments of the New Testament contain the grace thatthey signify’ and are not ‘merely outward signs’.

The third mainstream of Protestant activity wasAnglicanism. Here the reforms were more conservativethan those of Calvin, but the liturgy of the Book ofCommon Prayer (1552) was simplified and the wordingof the communion service suggested a memorialcelebration rather than one which actuallycommunicated Christ to the believer. On the other hand,among Puritans, Separatists and Baptists ‘there was a

39

Thomas Aquinas taught that the sacraments automaticallyconferred grace simply by being performed, and thewithholding of the cup of wine from the congregationwas justified by the fear that the transubstantiated wine(ie ‘the Blood of Christ’) might be spilled and cause ascandal. The practice of holding masses for the dead alsospread.

In the 14th century the pendulum swung in theopposite direction. John Wycliffe (about 1329-84) arguedthat Christ was only spiritually present in the elements,and Jan Huss (about 1370-1415) and his followerscriticized the withholding of the cup of wine from thecongregation. He went to the Council of Constance in1415 to explain his views but was burnt at the stake forthem.

Then came the Reformation. The Reformers generallyrejected ‘the medieval idea of the Church as ahierarchical institution… administering salvation throughsacraments’ (J. I. Packer). They reduced the list of sevensacraments to two or three, which alone, they argued,could be deemed to have been instituted by Christ.Salvationists may well claim that, if five sacramentscould be dropped by earlier reformers because they couldnot be shown to have been instituted by Jesus, surelythey may cease to use the two remaining sacraments onthe same grounds.

The Reformers were also united in their rejection ofthe doctrine of transubstantiation, but there theagreement among them ends. Erasmus (1466-1536)wrote: ‘Read the New Testament as a whole, and youwill find no commandment referring to these ceremonies.Ceremonies cause differences.’ He is said to have ‘madethe Reformation inevitable’ and to have ‘laid the eggwhich Luther hatched’. But Luther, who was in fact oneof the more moderate Reformers, was unwilling to go asfar as Erasmus, wishing to retain much medieval

38

7 Not Binding on our ConscienceIN discussing The Salvation Army’s position regardingthe sacraments, we should first note that it did notoriginate in any ingrained prejudice against them, norfrom any desire just to be ‘different’. The decision todiscontinue their use was the result of a gradual processin the minds of the Army’s founders, to which practicaldifficulties and growing conviction both contributed.

We should remember that William Booth was baptizedin the Church of England when only two days old. Hepartook of communion as a member of a Wesley chapeland administered the sacraments as an ordainedMethodist minister. His first son (William Bramwell) wasborn in Halifax in 1856 while the Booths were on anevangelistic tour. They moved on to conduct meetings inMacclesfield, and it was there that William himselfbaptized their baby with over 30 other infants. This wasdone deliberately so that the evangelist’s child might notbe made to seem ‘special’ by being given a separateceremony.

Further, William Booth was rather conservative bynature, and after breaking away from Methodism he didnot at first intend to found another denomination butonly an evangelistic agency. The observance of thesacraments was continued throughout the lifetime of TheChristian Mission. In his Echoes and MemoriesBramwell Booth described the situation following 1874:‘For some years we followed the practice of manyChurches and baptized infants. I have in some casesmyself “sprinkled” as many as 30 in one service! …This practice, however, died down gradually, chieflybecause it had no very strong conviction behind it; and

41

Babel of dissenting schisms and mutualexcommunications’.

As we saw in the last chapter (page 32), the Quakersor Society of Friends ceased to observe the formalsacraments. ‘They would say that in meetings forworship and in their silent pause before meals they haveknown the real presence of Christ and that, though thesemay be heightened moments, the whole of life issacramental’ (Encyclopaedia Britannica).

The 19th-century Brethren opted for a simplecommunion service to emphasize Christian fellowshipand express the priesthood of all believers.

If, therefore, Salvationists are called to justify theirabstinence from the communion service they mayjustifiably ask, ‘Which service?’ for there has never beenuniversal agreement on a liturgy and each group ofChristians has clung to its own observance in the beliefthat it was the only right one. These attitudes haveproduced many of the divisions in the Church which theecumenical movement has lately tried to heal. In thewords of General Frederick Coutts (No Discharge in ThisWar): ‘The witness of the Salvationist is simply that thepresence of the risen Christ may be fully realized, anddivine grace freely received, without the use of anymaterial element. The Salvationist believes most ardentlyin the Real Presence.’

40

be abandoned. In fact, he was of the opinion that theimpotence of the Church in reaching the masses might beput down to formalized religion.

The Founder, on the other hand, was swayed muchmore by practical considerations. He had one overridingconcern—that evangelistic enterprise should becompletely unhindered by anything that was unnecessary.Alongside this priority, the sacramental traditions of theChurch were secondary. ‘The central necessity ofconversion… was the heart and soul of histeaching’(Harold Begbie).

According to Begbie (William Booth—Founder of TheSalvation Army), William Booth came to believe towardsthe end of Christian Mission days that, though ‘theChurch teaches that an infant is cleansed from originalsin by the sprinkling of water in baptism’, as far as hewas concerned ‘the sprinkling… could not by anypossible means be anything more than a symbol; it couldnot make the smallest difference to the character andtemperament of the child.... Human personality is neitherto be regenerated by a ceremony nor to be transformedby logic.’ For William Booth it was ‘a detail ofsymbolism, and he left it freely to his followers whetherthey would be baptized or not’.

Bramwell Booth testified to the spiritual help he hadreceived from the Lord’s Supper and to his greatreluctance to accept the views of the other leaders. ‘Ibelieve that I was the last officer… to administer theLord’s Supper,’ he wrote. Eventually, however, he cameto the same conclusions about the sacraments as otherleaders, though it would seem that for a time his fatherhad given him a special dispensation, which he did notgrant to others, to continue to administer the sacraments.

It appears that celebrations of the Lord’s Supper wenton routinely until about 1882. There is a record, for

43

in place of it the Army introduced a service ofDedication.’ Regarding communion, he says: ‘When Icame on the scene as a responsible official of theMission, in 1874, the Lord’s Supper was administeredmonthly at all our stations to all members of the Missionand… Christian friends.’ The 1870 Constitution had laiddown that unfermented wine should be used for thesemonthly celebrations, but there are records which suggestthat water was sometimes used.

This position continued in the early days of the Army.‘Numerous instances of the administration of thesacrament by officers, men and women, are to be foundin reports till well into 1881. A correspondent of theNonconformist and Independent (9 February 1882) calledattention to the fact that in The Salvation Army thesacrament had for the first time in the history of theChurch been administered by women’ (The History ofThe Salvation Army, Volume II).

There had been, however, no reference to sacramentaldoctrine or practice in the articles of doctrine which werelegally enshrined in the Deed Poll of 1878, and graduallythe leaders began to have misgivings about theircontinued use.

The ‘Army Mother’, Catherine Booth, was probablythe first to experience these doubts. She felt very stronglyabout the dangers of anything that might make Christiansrely on ritual rather than on a change in heart and life.She was also a champion of the ministry of womenwithin the Church, and for women to administer thesacraments was quite unthinkable in most church circles.

George Scott Railton, Booth’s chief assistant from1873-82, also argued the dangers of all ritualism, whichhe declared to be part of the ‘old dispensation’ ratherthan Christian principle and practice. If suchceremonies were not necessary, he thought, they should

42

In May of the same year the Convocation ofCanterbury appointed a committee to investigate thepossibility of attaching the Army to the Anglican Church.The chairman was the Bishop of Truro (Dr E. W.Benson) who later became Archbishop of Canterbury. Inthe discussions with the Founder which followed, one ofthe main problems concerned the sacraments. In June, DrBenson wrote to William Booth: ‘One thing I do look towith great anxiety—namely, that the church people whofollow with you, or others who… may desire tocommunicate in church, should not be debarred bycompulsory arrangements of your own from the partakingof the communion with their brethren.’ The Founder feltthat he could not give this guarantee, and other difficultquestions presented themselves. Would Army officershave to be ordained by a bishop before they couldadminister the sacraments? Would women be acceptableas ministers? Would the Army have to accept the use offermented wine? Would all Salvationists have to bebaptized and ‘confirmed’ before receiving communion?Would the very roughly ‘converted’ Army buildings berecognized as consecrated buildings? Would the proposalthat each corps should be asked to attend the parishchurch for communion at regular intervals mean that theobservances which had been taking place within corpswould become invalid?

The discussions took place in a friendly atmosphere,but it soon became clear that both sides would have tosacrifice principles which they regarded as essential andthat there would be many practical difficulties. Bothsides, therefore, began a hasty if dignified retreat.

On the Army side, Railton and Bramwell Booththought it essential that the Army should retain itsmilitary structure and freedom of action, and theFounder was concerned about ‘The Salvation Army’sessential unity’, believing that the proposed arrange-

45

example, that in 1879 an observance took place in anofficers’ meeting led by an aide of William Booth atMountain Ash in Wales, and a report of the 1878 WarCongress indicates that both the sacramental ceremonyand the love feast (common meal) were observed at thatdate: ‘After sacrament only a quarter of an hour remainedfor the love feast.’

In 1881 Booth issued a statement, drafted by Railton,that: ‘There must be no baptismal service that can deludeanyone into a vain hope of getting to Heaven withoutbeing “born again”. There must be no Lord’s Supper“administered” by anybody in such a way as to showanything like a priestly superiority of one over another—every saved person being a “priest unto God”.... Theremust never be a sacramental service at the end of ameeting so as to prevent the possibility of invitingsinners to the Mercy Seat.’ Begbie concludes: ‘Hedeliberately rejected the sacrament; but it was not untilhe had studied the matter with care and with anxiety, notuntil he had weighed with a grave deliberation all theconsequences of that rejection.’

The final break with the sacramental tradition wasbrought about, strangely, by overtures from the Churchof England. In February 1882, 500 uniformedSalvationists had, by invitation, attended a service at StPaul’s Church, York, at 8 am where the sacrament wasadministered by two Anglican clergymen. The servicewas timed so that ‘as our soldiers marched out, theordinary congregation was waiting to go in’ (The WarCry, 16 March 1882). This in itself was not anuncommon event, but it sparked off an approach to theFounder by the Archbishop of York to see how far theArmy could be recognized by the Church of England. Inhis letter he mentioned that ‘bodies of The SalvationArmy’ had ‘been admitted to holy communion at theirrequest’ at two of his churches.

44

clergyman, who had interviewed the Founder, quoted himas saying that, ‘some of his people on their ownresponsibility had had a very simple “breaking of bread”together, but that this was no part of the Army—as anevangelistic agency’. The History of The Salvation Army,Volume II, states: ‘For a time individual Salvationistswent to church communion services, but eventually thisceased, it being accepted that divided loyalty couldnaturally not be anything but a source of weakness.’Begbie (William Booth) quotes the case (date unspecified)of Lady Henry Somerset, who ‘was willing to join theArmy... but she could not give up the rite.... She asked…if she might be allowed to go for holy communion to theChurch of England. The answer was a negative.’ On theother hand, Bramwell Booth wrote (in Echoes andMemories): ‘Any soldier who declared a seriousconviction in the matter and desired to participate…could receive a recommendation to go to some otherbody for the purpose of partaking.’ Perhaps‘circumstances altered cases’ for other reasons.

The Salvation Army, therefore, went on its coursewithout fixed ritual. Salvation Army Ceremonies givessome suggestions concerning certain ordinances, but theintroduction makes it clear that no leader is restricted to aset form of words but must be open to the guidance ofthe Holy Spirit.

We may therefore summarize the reasons for theArmy’s abandonment of the traditional sacramentalpractices thus:

1. The fear of ritualism. Catherine Booth and Railtonespecially regarded formalism as potentially verydangerous. So many Christians relied on the signs ofspiritual grace rather than on the grace itself, butCatherine believed that salvation came solely by thegrace of God personally received by faith. Much thatpassed for Christianity was primarily an observance of

47

ments would be tantamount to an admission that Armyprocedures lacked an essential of salvation, an essentialwhich its soldiers would have to seek elsewhere.

On the Anglican side, there were emotive protestsfrom some who did not want to have the Salvationistsinside their fold. The thought of having these roughsoldiers in their pews, with timbrel and voice at fullvolume, was something of a nightmare. The Dean of StPaul’s (R. W. Church), for instance, when BramwellBooth tried to arrange a service in the cathedral forSalvationists, did not wish any Salvationist to take part,although Anglican clergymen favourable to the Armywould be included. However, the arrangements werefinally aborted on the grounds that the dean was afraidthat the hobnailed boots of the Salvationists mightdamage the recently relaid marble floor of the cathedral.In other cases, as we have seen already, services werearranged in such a way that Salvationists and regularparishioners would not be in church together.

So the negotiations for union faded out, thoughWilliam Booth described them as ‘for ever a pleasantmemory’. The Convocation of 1883 dissolved thecommittee set up the previous year, but not before somespeakers had made ludicrous accusations against theArmy, such as that it was contributing to the rate ofillegitimate births by holding late-night meetings.

Thereafter the only Anglican clergyman to makeserious attempts to persuade the Army (through BramwellBooth) to reintroduce communion was Dean Farrar, butBramwell was unimpressed by his arguments.

It would seem that at this time there was still somedoubt in William Booth’s mind as to whether the Armywas a church with the right of determining its ownsacramental position, or an evangelistic agency looking tothe churches for this aspect of worship. In 1881 a

46

gone more strange perversions or has been moregrievously deflected and distorted.... If you wish to knowhow Christians can hate one another, you have only toread the later history of the sacraments’ (Bishop Jayne).

4. The conflict between the ‘separate priesthood’required by sacramentalists and the ‘priesthood of allbelievers’ to which the Army was committed, ie that anyChristian may minister to others. This could not bereconciled with episcopal ordination.

5. The position of women. They were alreadyestablished in the Army on equal terms with men, butwould not be recognized by sacramentalists as qualifiedto administer the sacraments. Women’s ministry wasmore important to Army leaders than the sacraments. AsMrs General Minnie Carpenter wrote: ‘William Boothwas not willing to surrender the principle of the perfectequality of men and women in every activity of theKingdom of Christ.’ Even the Church might well preferthe Army to cease to use the sacraments altogetherrather than for it to have ‘women priests’ administeringthem.

6. The fact that the Quakers lived obviously holy liveswithout the use of the sacraments showed that they werenot essential to Christian life. Multitudes unquestionablyhave become ‘new Christians in Christ Jesus’ andcontinued ‘steadfast in the faith’ without outwardbaptism. In his Exeter Hall address on 16 April 1883, theFounder declared: ‘If it were proved [that the sacramentsare conditions of salvation] you would shut out of heavensome of the best and holiest that ever walked the face ofthe earth.’ On the other hand, it is clear that manybaptized communicants do not show evidence of holyliving. ‘You will recognize them by the fruits they bear’(Matthew 7:16).

7. Many Salvationists had been alcoholics or drunkards

49

outward ritual. In Popular Christianity she wrote of “‘amock salvation” as distinct from “a real deliverance fromsin”‘. ‘Another mock salvation is presented in the shapeof ceremonies and sacraments… men are taught that bygoing through them, or partaking of them, they are to besaved.... What an inveterate tendency there is in thehuman heart to trust in outward forms, instead of seekingthe inward grace!’

2. The belief that there was no scriptural basis forregarding the sacraments as essential to salvation orChristian living. William Booth, in a statement to officerson 2 January 1883, said: ‘I cannot accept any obligationas binding upon my conscience, neither will I seek tobind any upon yours, to do, or believe, or teach anythingfor which authority cannot be furnished from the word ofGod, or which God Himself does not reveal to us by HisSpirit, as our present duty.’ Again he writes: ‘If I believedthat my Lord Jesus Christ required of me that I shouldtake so many pieces of bread and so much wine everyday of my life, I should unhesitatingly carry out Hiscommands. There is nothing that I am conscious of thatHe requires me to do that I leave undone.’ For it was thebaptism with the Holy Spirit and constant spiritualcommunion with our Lord through His Spirit that was ofprime importance. Each meal should be sacramental—infact the whole of life should be. As William Temple(Christus Veritas) wrote: ‘It is possible to make a“spiritual communion” which is in every way as real as asacramental communion.... Everywhere and always wecan have communion with Him.’

3. The fact that the sacraments had been a divisiveinfluence in the body of Christ throughout Christianhistory. ‘Holy Communion has notoriously been thestorm-centre of bitter controversy and division throughoutChristendom. No truth of Christianity has under-

48

51

and would have been tempted by the fermented wine incommon use in churches, unfermented being difficult orimpossible to obtain. Even unfermented wine could causeproblems.

8. William Booth had not wanted to form a church,and the question of the administration of the sacramentswithin the Army might well have brought it into collisionwith the existing churches, which he strongly wished toavoid.

* * *

Finally, here are four apt summaries of the Army’sposition:

(a) A reporter in India: ‘The Salvationists never for amoment lay aside their consciousness that they are in theimmediate presence of the Deity. They never quit it. Theyare as close to His feet while singing a song, beating adrum, or talking to a crowd, as when prostrate in prayer.’

(b) Professor John McQuarrie (Principles of ChristianTheology): ‘Although it [The Salvation Army] has nosacraments, we could not for a moment deny that itreceives and transmits divine grace.’

(c) Paul to the Colossians (2:16,17): ‘Allow no onetherefore to take you to task about what you eat or drink,or over the observance of festival, new moon or sabbath.These are no more than a shadow of what was to come;the solid reality is Christ’s.’

(d) William Booth at an Exeter Hall meeting on 13March 1889: ‘Neither water, sacraments, church servicesnor Salvation Army methods will save you without aliving, inward change of heart and a living, active faithand communion with God....’

50