Most of the errors which have so grievously obscured the true nature of this sacrament have proceeded from attempts to answer the question, “How does the reception of the consecrated elements affect the inner state of the receiver?” To those who hold the symbolic view, as I understand it, it seems clear that the question of cause and effect must be resolutely cast aside.  The reciprocal action of spirit and matter is the one great mystery which, to all appearance, must remain impenetrable to the finite intelligence.  We do not ask whether the soul is the cause of the body, or the body of the soul; we only know that the two are found, in experience, always united.  In the same way we should abstain, I think, from speculating on the effect of the sacraments, and train ourselves instead to consider them as divinely-ordered symbols, by which the Church, as an organic whole, and we as members of it, realise the highest and deepest of our spiritual privileges.

There are other religious forms for which no Divine institution is claimed, but which have a quasi-sacramental value.  And those who, “whether they eat, or drink, or whatever they do,” do all to the glory of God, may be said to turn the commonest acts into sacraments.  To the true mystic, life itself is a sacrament.  It is natural, but unfortunate, that some of those who have felt this most strongly have shown a tendency to disparage observances which are simply acts of devotion, “mere forms,” as they call them.  The attempt to distinguish between conventional ceremonies, which have no essential connexion with the truth symbolised, and actions which are in themselves moral or immoral, is no doubt justifiable, but it should be remembered that this is the way in which antinomianism takes its rise.  Many have begun by saying, “The heart, the motive, is all, the external act nothing; the spirit is all, the letter nothing.  What can it matter whether I say my prayers in church or at home, on my knees or in bed, in words or in thought only?  What can it matter whether the Eucharistic bread and wine are consecrated or not? whether I actually eat and drink or not?” And so on.  The descent to Avernus is easy by this road.  Perhaps no sect that has professed contempt for all ceremonial forms has escaped at least the imputation of scandalous licentiousness, with the honourable exception of the Quakers.  The truth is that the need of symbols to express or represent our highest emotions is inwoven with human nature, and indifference to them is not, as many have supposed, a sign of enlightenment or of spirituality.  It is, in fact, an unhealthy symptom.  We do not credit a man with a warm heart who does not care to show his love in word and act; nor should we commend the common sense of a soldier who saw in his regimental colours only a rag at the end of a pole.  It is one of the points in which we must be content to be children, and should be thankful that we may remain children with a clear conscience.