The Sacrificial Aspect of the Holy Eucharist

S. Mark xiv. 22–25

If we follow SS. Mark and Matthew we can have no doubt that Judas had left the Supper-room before our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist, and gave to His Apostles the precious Food of His Body and Blood. S. Luke’s Gospel, however, suggests that his departure followed the institution j but there are sufficient grounds for concluding that the order of time is not preserved in this part of his narrative. An instinctive feeling of reverence makes us shrink from the idea that Christ could have tolerated the traitor at the first celebration of a Feast which, throughout all time, was to be a symbol of love and union. Further, it would seem morally impossible that Judas should be able to remain after realising that his guilty secret was divulged. And yet again S. John furnishes direct evidence that after the sop, which revealed to the disciples who it was that should betray Him, Jesus told him to do the fatal deed “quickly;” and accordingly “he went immediately out.” It is difficult to understand how, in the face of this testimony, not a few of the early Fathers, the Schoolmen, and the Reformers, should have thought that he was present. Even Bishop Wren, at the last revision of the Prayer-Book, was unable to persuade his colleagues to alter the words of the Exhortation which appeared to favour this view, “lest, after the taking of that Holy Sacrament, the devil enter into you, as he entered into Judas.”

It was then, we believe, in the course of the Last Supper, after the interruption caused by the terrible revelation of Judas’s design, that Jesus took one of the Paschal cakes — probably the last that was usually eaten — and invoking upon it a blessing, that it might fulfil the end for which He was setting it apart, proceeded to deliver it to the Eleven, with the declaration, “This is My Body.” There was no Paschal lamb on the table for them to partake of, and it was wholly unnecessary, for as the true Antitype He was about to supersede the type for ever. It was in view of this that He gave them, by anticipation, His Own Body, the sacrificial offering of which was already begun by the surrender of Himself at that moment, though it would not be consummated till the appointed time when the lamb was slain.

So also the cup of mingled wine — the third at the Passover, which was passed round for all to drink before they rose from the table — He declared to be His Blood of the New Covenant, then being shed, just as His Body was being broken, for the remission of sins. As the blood of the Paschal lamb, sprinkled on the posts of their houses, was intended to remind God of His old Covenant with His people, so Christ ordained that henceforth they should have the pledge of a new Covenant with Him through His Own Sacrificial Blood.

To the Apostles, familiar as they were with all the ritual of the Passover, such acts could hardly fail to be interpreted sacrificially. The Holy Eucharist was instituted “in sacrificial terms, at a sacrificial time, and for a sacrificial end.”

The brief narrative of S. Mark suggests at once that it was “a Feast upon a Sacrifice;” and it is echoed by S. Paul when he writes, “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast.” Jesus gave His Body first to be sacrificially slain, and then to be eaten, “as the antitype of those offerings which, after being slain, were wholly or in part consumed by the worshippers.”

If we turn to the longer account given by S. Luke, its sacrificial aspect is made still more prominent. This contains a direction to the Apostles to celebrate it after His departure as the “memorial” of His Death: “This do in remembrance of Me.” S. Paul, who was so closely associated with the third Evangelist in the writing of his Gospel, adds the declaration: “For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup. ye do show the Lord’s Death till He come.”

The full force of the expressions here used, and their appropriateness to the Holy Eucharist, will be made clear by a consideration of the ritual of the typical sacrifice of the old Dispensation. It consisted of five 1 distinct actions, as follows: —

i. The surrender and presentation of the victim by the offerer.

2. The imposition of hands by the offerer, by which he symbolically transferred his sins to his substitute.

3. The slaying of the victim, also by the offerer, to indicate his acknowledgment that death was incurred by his sin.

4. The sprinkling of the blood upon the altar, or the mercy -seat, by the priest, — the presentation and pleading before God of that which “makes atonement for the soul.”

5. The consumption of the body of the victim, either by fire, or by the priest, or by the priests and people, or, as in the Passover, wholly by the people.

When we turn to the Antitype we find that only the first three of these are yet completely accomplished.

Christ surrendered Himself in the eternal counsels of the Godhead, and finally in the garden of Gethsemane.

The substitution of Himself to bear the sins of the world, it would seem, began in the Agony, and was completed at the moment that He cried, “My God, My God, why didst Thou forsake Me?”

Again, He died once for all upon the Cross. It could only have been of these three acts that He said: “It is finished.”

That He did not intend to indicate, as has been so often said, that the whole sacrificial system was then for ever closed, is clear from the fact that the action which alone gave efficacy to the sacrifice had not even begun. This was the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar, or the mercy-seat — the pleading of its efficacy for the remission of sins. This Presentation of Christ’s Sacrificial Blood began when He entered heaven at the Ascension, and it will continue till He shall come out again. Christ will never cease to present to the Father “the memorial” of His Sacrifice, perpetually exhibiting the marks of His Passion — the wounds in His hands and feet, and His pierced side, and interceding for us by its merits, till He shall have delivered up His mediatorial kingdom at the end of the world. Unless He is doing continuously what the Jewish High Priest did momentarily during the brief period that he remained within the veil, the contrast drawn in the Epistle to the Hebrews between them completely breaks down.

Now we shall see the bearing of Christ’s pleading upon the Holy Eucharist, when we compare the language He used to the Apostles with that by which “the pleading of the blood” is characterised in Holy Scripture. Its object is described as to make “a remembrance — an anamnesis — of sins every year.” The word is restricted in its Scriptural usage to “a memorial before God.” Thus the sacrifices of peace-offering were designed to be “for a memorial before God.” Again, the frankincense upon the shewbread was “for a memorial, even an offering by fire unto the Lord;” and Aaron was directed to “set it in order before the Lord every Sabbath-day.” It was never used of any action or thing intended merely to quicken men’s remembrance. For this the Greek translators always employed another word, “mnemosunon” though in the Authorised Version this, too, is rendered “memorial.” Thus the brazen censers of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were made “a covering of the altar to be a memorial to the children of Israel.” So also the twelve stones set up after the crossing of the Jordan were intended as “a memorial unto the children of Israel for ever.”

When, then, our Blessed Lord, at such a time, and amidst such surroundings, used of the ordinance that He was instituting a term which had been appropriated to sacrificial memorials, “Do this in remembrance of Me,” literally, “As My memorial,” or anamnesis; those who received His command would naturally conclude that it was to be sacrificial in its character. And there can be little question, to judge from the terms commonly applied both to the Holy Eucharist and to that whereon it was offered, that it was so interpreted by the Primitive Church.

It was doubtless from a belief in some mysterious union of the earthly oblation with the heavenly that this became the great office of Intercession, that prayers for all estates of men, as well the faithful dead as the living, curtailed in later times with harm and loss to the Church, formed such an important element in the service. It was that one, they felt, in which they could rely upon the closest co-operation of Him “Who ever liveth to make intercession.” And what more inspiring thought can we feel than that, when the Sacred Mysteries are celebrated, we mortal creatures, not only the priests who celebrate, but men and women, by virtue of a priesthood which Scripture assigns to the laity, and which the Anglican Church is so careful to recognise, are able to blend our intercessory act, in all its weakness and imperfection, with the all-sufficient mediation of the Great High Priest in heaven?

It is when we realise this that we understand how the fourth of the ritual actions in Christ’s Sacrifice is not yet complete; and how, whilst it is perpetually going on in heaven, it has its earthly counterpart, by His command, in the representation of the Holy Eucharist.

So in like manner, as we have already intimated, the fifth action, the participation of the Sacrifice, “once offered,” is still continued in the same service.

In the peace-offerings, the body of the victim, after being accepted by God, was given back to the worshippers by Him for a twofold object. First, it was to be partaken of by them in token of their friendship with each other, and with Him Who gave it to them; secondly, it indicated that it was God’s food, by which their bodies were sustained and refreshed.

Even so in the Holy Eucharist, the Church, keeping the typical feast always in view, has been careful to employ every safeguard for the exclusion of those in whom there is “malice or hatred,” or who are “at variance” with each other, as well as “the open and notorious evil liver,” who cannot possibly be at peace with God.

Again, Christ Himself gives us back, from what, regarded on the side of the Giver, is His Table, or, as it was happily called in the first Prayer-Book, “God’s Board,” His Body, which has been laid upon the altar by “the Commemorative Oblation,” to be eaten “after a spiritual and heavenly manner.” x

And herein the transcendent superiority of the Christian over the Jewish Sacrificial Feast is apparent. There is not the faintest intimation that that of which the Jewish worshippers partook had any direct influence upon their spiritual lives; but with us it is placed beyond the possibility of doubt. Under the forms of bread and wine we receive that which “is meat indeed and drink indeed,” not merely for “the strengthening and refreshing” of our bodies, but as the immortal Food of the undying soul; for Christ has assured us, with all the solemnity of a twofold asseveration, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” And again He has said, “As the Living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me.”

Note: S. Hilary was very decided the other way. Cf. Comm. in Matth. C XXX.

Note: He proposed to add “after the sop,” to show that the entrance of Satan into him was not because of his receiving the Sacrament. Cf. Scudamore, Not. Euch. c. xv. s. ii.

Note: The Gemarists say,” The wise men agree with R. Eliezer, that no one ought to bless the cup of blessing, till water be mingled with it.” The Rabbis used a different blessing over unmingled wine, viz.,” Blessed be He that created the fruit of the tree,” instead of “the fruit of the vine,” which is the expression here used by our Lord. Cf. Tal. Bab. Berach. 50 b.

Note: Sadler, in “The One Offering,” has named four only, leaving out in his enumeration, though of course he mentions it incidentally, the laying the hands on the head of the victim. Cf. ch. x. Willis, in his “Worship of the Old Covenant,” has named six, subdividing the “consumption” into two actions, viz., the burning and the partaking, but in either case it symbolises God’s acceptance of the sacrifice. In the former He consumes it Himself; in the latter He gives it to others to consume.

Note: The following are a few illustrations from English Divines of recognised orthodoxy. “Here is a commemorative, imperative, applicative sacrifice.” — Bramhall, Ep. de la Millitiere: Works, i. 54. “The Eucharist was instituted, ... if we may so speak, for a commemorative sacrifice.” — Andrewes, Resp. ad Apolog. “As it is... a representation of Christ’s Death, so it is a commemorative sacrifice.” — Jer. Taylor, Life of Chr., Disc. xix. Cf. also his “Worthy Communicant.”

Note: Cf. Art. xxviii. “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly,” etc. Bishop Guest, who re-wrote this article in 1563, finding that his language was interpreted as derogating from the doctrine of the Real Presence, explained that what he meant by heavenly was “no earthly manner of eating,” and by spiritual, “not perceptible to the