The Sacrament of Baptism is the bed rock for building up the Christian life. It is from the Greek word 'Baptizein', meaning 'immersion', that the English term Baptism has originated. From the tone of the NT, it is to be deemed as a rite of initiation. As is well known, Jesus Himself was initiated into public ministry through baptism by John the Baptist. The Apostles were instructed by Jesus to baptise believers. After Peter's address on the day of Pentecost, baptising was the first overt act of the Apostles. Since the Sacrament has 'gospel' basis, Episcopal Churches as well as Congregational Assemblies acknowledge this as a 'dominical sacrament'; or as one instituted by Jesus Christ Himself. Yet, differences and divergences in the modality of administering baptism are seen among Churches. Adult Baptism was the norm in the beginning of Christianity. From the book captioned 'Early History of the Liturgy till the time of Gregory the Great' of Josef Jungmann, S.J, the following episodes can be incorporated. St. Augustine was baptised only at the age of 33 yrs; the deferring was due to his mother's insistence. John Chrysostom was baptised when he was 25; Basil at 26; Gregory of Nazianzus at 28, Ambrose at 34 when he was elected bishop. Constantine, the Emperor, did not get baptised until he was on his deathbed. From the 'Apostolic Tradition' of Hippolytus the details of a liturgy of baptism, without naming it so, has been obtained. A period of preparation, to gain entry into the Christian way of life was prescribed in the early periods. Thus came into vogue the stage called catechumenate. During this period the would-be converts were instructed on Christian doctrines. A sponsor was also needed. By the 3rd century, baptism came to be linked with Easter and so became an annual ceremony. Chapter 7 of the 'Didache' paints a very simple picture of Baptism. It prescribes Baptism in water in the name of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. The third century Syrian Church order known as 'Didascalia Apostolorum' requires deaconesses to be appointed, in order to carry out this ministry for women candidates. Almost at this time, infant baptism came into vogue. The sponsor became the guardian of the child's faith after Baptism. This development took place around the 5th century. It was pointed out by some scholars, that as infants could not fulfil the conditions of renouncing the evil, of repentence and of faith, they were ineligible to receive the grace through Baptism. Those in favour of infant Baptism argued that the initiated infant would grow in grace through the sacramental structure. On the authority of Mt. 8 and Mk. 2, they further held that the sponsors could fulfil all the necessary conditions and God would respond to the faith of the sponsors. Again, quoting Mk10, they asserted that God's love and grace are antecedent and absolute. These arguments do have substance. Christianity aims at transcending the disjunction between the subjective and objective aspects of existence. It is better that Christian life coincides with the beginning of life itself. Besides, it is to be pointed out that over-exaggerated individualism is the cause for the antipathy towards infant baptism. After all, Christian existence is ecclesial or corporate. Many a catechumen had to die before receiving baptism. So it was held that the sooner the 'incorporation' is effected, the better. Yet another change occured around this time. When infant baptism bacame the order of the day, immersion in water was replaced by pouring of water on the head of the child. This was for expediency sake.

The 'two constituents' required in every Sacrament, namely 'matter' and 'form', are, in the case of Baptism, 'water' and 'washing' respectively. With regard to the effects of Baptism, preaching of St. Paul is to be dealt with at first. According to Pauline epistle to Gal 3:27 and Rom 13:14, Baptism is 'putting on Christ'. The obvious inference is that through Baptism, a person regains 'individuality'. That is, indivisible communion with the Triune God. It is the result of getting ingrafted to the Corpus of Christ. Further, Baptism provides the Christian certainty and protection of Christian life. In his 'Christian Doctrine' Dr. J.S. Whale narrates an anecdote which throws insight into this effect of Baptism. "When Luther was most afflicted with temptations and doubts, he would write two words on his table with a piece of chalk, 'baptizatus sum' meaning 'I have been baptised'. Luther meant that Baptism was the foundation of his Christian certainty. Baptism turns away an individual from the sinful ways to that of grace. To Theophilus of Antioch, Baptism represented remission of sins and regeneration in Christ. The dynamics is as follows. Separateness from the 'Being' is the basis of what is termed sin. This agonising attitude is annuled by Baptism, by gaining entry into the ecclesial existence and through it communion with Christ. Hence St. Paul says: "we are baptized into one body, the body of Christ". For St. Paul, immersion in the baptismal water and arousing from it are symbols of dying and resurrecting with Christ, the Saviour. The imagery of 'putting on the garment' of the grace and spirit of Christ is a recurring one in the writings of Syrian Fathers, when dealing with Baptism. Further, the Fathers of Syrian systems relate Baptism with the 'Motherhood' of the Church. In the 'Hymns of Epiphany', St. Ephrem develops the idea of the 'baptismal font' as the uterus of the 'Mother Church'. In a similar manner S.J.Beggiani in his work 'Early Syrian Theology' extols the effect of Baptism: "As the womb of our mother Eve gave birth to mortal children subject to corruption, let this Baptism become a womb which will give birth to spiritual and immortal children". In the Greek tradition, Didymus the Blind is considered as the first author who speaks of the 'baptismal font' as the perpetual virgin mother of the baptized. So opines the Oxford theologian, Sebestian Brock, in the 'Mysteries hidden in the side of Christ'. Again through Baptism, an individual gains a temporal identity. He or she is counted somebody in the body of Christ. This is the significance of giving a Christian name during Baptism. Awarding a title or name to some one or to something is equivalent to owning. The OT account of Adam giving names to beasts of the earth and birds of the blue signifies man's right over them. Another effect of Baptism is that it makes one a spouse of Jesus. Baptism is no mere formality or ritual. It enables one to receive grace in abundance and commits one to general ministry. In St. Augustine's 'Confessions' there is an interesting incident. An old Platonic philosopher by name Marius Victorinus is trying to induce a simple hearted bishop to consider him a Christian on account of his conviction, without requiring him to come to the Church to be baptized. Did walls, he asked, make Christians. The philosopher was made to understand that he could become a Christian only by being baptized in the Christian way. What Gregory of Nazianzus puts poetically cannot be but incorporated as it clarifies the all comprehensive effects of Baptism. "Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift. We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal and most precious gift. It is called gift because, it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace, since it is given to the guilty; baptism, because sin is buried in water; anointing, for it is priestly and royal; enlightenment, as it radiates light; clothing, since it veils our shame; bath, because it washes; and seal, as it is our guard and sign of God's Lordship". Really, Baptism begets benign beingness in beings of base metals and mean minds.

Chrism is the Sacrament that fortifies one with the Holy Spirit. It is true that the NT does not specifically say about Chrism or Chrismation as a Sacrament. But the gospel basis of this Sacrament can be inferred from passages like Jn 20:22, I Jn 2:20 and Acts 8:17. As in the Apostolic experience on the Pentecost, theologically there is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Chrism. About Chrism, Dr. J.N.D. Kelly observes in his 'Early Christian Doctrines', "it is a common place of patristic teaching that it betokens the baptised converts' admission to the kingship and priesthood of Messiah". He goes on to add, that for Cyril of Alexandria, "it signifies the 'perfecting' of those who have been justified through Christ in baptism". It was contended that when anointed with the holy oil or Chrism, the baptised receives from the Paraclete, the power to fight temptation. Besides, the recipient would become endowed with the 'seven gifts' of the Holy Spirit. They are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, meekness, piety and the love of the Lord. Precisely, which all graces are required for the full spiritual growth would flow from Chrismation. However, there are two views about the effect of this Sacrament. Some say that the presence of the Spirit is experienced only through this Sacrament. They have two supporting arguments from the NT for their theory. One is the story of the Samaritans as recorded in Acts 8:17. Though the Samaritans were baptised by Philip, the disciple, they were endowed with the Spirit only when Apostles Peter and John 'laid on' their hands on them. The other episode is the case of the Ephesians, who albiet were a baptised group, received the Holy Spirit only when St. Paul laid on his hands upon them. 'Laying on of hands' was deemed a symbolic act of Chrismation. The other view is that by administering Chrism, nothing special is added to the benefits already bestowed by Baptism. They argued that this Sacrament simply deepens or intensifies what has already been effected through Baptism. Nonetheless, Chrismation makes the candidate a true witness to Christ. This appears to be the definite doctrine of the Orthodox Churches. On the authority of Jn. 20:22, Aquinas argued that this Sacrament can be construed to have been instituted by the 'historical' Jesus Himself. It is admitted that in the cited passage, what is stated is that Jesus 'breathed' on them. But when one comes to know, that according to the Church Fathers, besides air, there are various other symbols also such as dove, oil, etc., to represent the Spirit, the implication of 'oil' or Chrism becomes intelligible. Also, the positiveness of the arguments of Aquinas becomes appreciable. Further, the ancients might have drawn inspiration to select 'oil' as a medium for heralding divine presence from the parable of the 'wise virgins' who had reserved 'oil' to light up their lanterns to receive the 'Bridegroom' with the warmest welcome. The 'anointing oil' here is the medium to 'light' the life of the candidate to receive the honourable heavenly guest, the Holy Spirit.

Like Baptism, Chrismation also is not repeatable but administered only once in one's life-time. The 'matter' in this Sacrament is the 'anointing oil'. The 'form' is the 'formula' of the Bl. Trinity, invoked in Chrismation. It was explicated that while Baptism denotes birth in Christ, this Sacrament signifies growth in Spirit to be culminated in the communion with God the Father. Thus, the theology of this Sacrament is subject to the operation of 'Perichoresis'. A few conceptual developments on this Sacrament that have happened in the Roman Catholic Chuch have to be glossed over. If in the past, the emphasis was on the endowment of the 'seven gifts', today it is on the effect of making the baptised, true witness of Christ. This is certainly an approximation to the doctrine of the Orthodox Churches. Further, following the publication of the 'Rites for Christian Intiation of Adults', there is a reversion to the Orthodox tradition of unified celebration of Baptism and Chrismation. This is confirmed by the Catholic priest Liam Kelly in his very recent book 'Sacraments Revisited'. According to the RCIA, "the conjunction of the two celebrations signifies the unity of Paschal mystery, the close link between the mission of the Son and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit". Vatican too, is not antipathetic to the 'joint administration' as is evident from the bull to the Syro-Malabar Rite of Kerala. In both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, Chrism is sanctified by the bishops. The priests administer it with the permission of the prelates.

Originally, Chrismation was administered jointly with Baptism. Of course, there was no uniformity regarding the order of precedence in administration. According to the 'Acts of Thomas', an apocryphal text of antiquity, 'anointing' was followed by Baptism with water. J.D. Zizioulas, the theologian, in his 'Being as Communion' writes that while in Syria and Palestine, Christmation preceded Baptism, in other places Baptism preceded Chrismation or Confirmation. This latter practice came to prevail everywhere, by the fourth century. Antiquarian Tertullian's account of around 200 AD, accords authoritativeness to the norm of 'joint administration'. He states, "then having come up from the font, we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction..... In the next place, his hand is laid on blessing, invoking and inviting the Holy Spirit." In the East, 'anointing', rather than 'laying on of hands', was the essential feature. Catechism 21:1-3 of Cyril of Jerusalem substantiates this practice. He contends that just as Jesus received the Spirit in the form of a 'dove' after being baptised, so the 'oil' anointed on the baptitized person, symbolises the sanctification by the Spirit. Here also, it may be recalled that like 'dove', 'oil', is also a symbol of Holy Spirit. In the West, 'laying on of hands' continues along with Chrismation as an important ingredient in inititation. In 416 A.D. Pope Innocent I introduced a distinction between 'baptism' and what was termed 'signing' with the 'oil' equivalent to Chrismation. While priests could baptize, 'signing' was reserved exclusively for the bishops. Really this rite was one of 'consignation', as it involved only the stamping of the sign of the Cross on the forehead of the candidate. In due course, 'consignation' came to be called 'confirmation' because it 'confirmed' or as Serapion, the 4th century bishop of Thumis and contemporary of Athanasius says, 'strengthened' a candidate to fight for Christ. The term 'confirmation' was used for the first time at the French Council of Riez in 439. Confirmation was conducted when the candidate reached adulthood or attained the age of discrimination. The 'Holy See of Antioch' did not approve of the changes of Rome, on the ground that the original practice was 'joint administration' and that too in infancy. The doctrine of Confirmation at a later age is based on the assumption that re-affirmation of baptismal vows by a mature person would felicitate 'Christian witnessing'. William Durandus, who became bishop of Mende in France in 1285, changed the imposition of hands on each candidate to an extension of the hands over all the candidates assembled seeking Confirmation. He also introduced 'the slap on the cheek', along with Confirmation. This was a sign that in this 'Sacrament' the candidate received the strength to fight temptation. The council of Trent confirmed 'confirmation' in no ambiguous terms. Incidentally it is to be mentioned that, although many of the Protestant Churches have abolished 'confirmation', Church of England still retains it as a 'divine ordinance'. The general thinking of the Episcopal Churches is that Chrismation, with or without the laying on of hands, would bestow the Holy Spirit on the baptised.

'Fire escape'! answered the priest to the curious enquiry of a gentleman about the confessional. May be, confession redeems one, who treads along the primrose path to the everlasting bonfire of the hell. But, is it the be all and end all of this Sacrament called Confession or Penance? No. Not at all. Much more. The mature wisdom that prompted the ancient prelates to prescribe this as a Sacrament is vouched in modern times by psychology. Guilt conscience, this recent subject affirms, is the inevitable traumatic effect of unethical and immoral acts of man. Its sequel, suppression of guilt, generates many a psycho-somatic illness. The sooner this haunting guilt feeling is eliminated, the better for the sufferer. 'Mother Church', the wise diviner into the working of the mind of man and that of God too, prescribes the most effective remedy for this malady and that is the Sacrament of 'Confession'. In this Sacrament man admits, God acquits. To elucidate, the sinner repents for his or her faults and follies. God, the merciful replenishes that child of His by His abundant grace and limitless love. In short, by 'Confession' one wins back 'wholeness' of personality. No wonder, this marvellous Sacrament is the heart or core of 'Christian Charity', as enshrined in the Gospels. A sympathetic sentiment to sinners, suits best with the spirit of the Gospel. This is what is exemplified in the 'judgement' of Jesus of the 'sinner' Mary Magdelene. What a wonderful physician is Jesus, who prescribed repentance and explained the effect of the remedy through the parable of the prodigal son. Verily, when the created 'regrets', the Creator 'responds'. Syrian Fathers frequently speak of sin as a wound that requires healing. St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Ephesians 7:2, the author of the 'Acts of Thomas' and St. Ephrem in his 'Hymn on Nativity' 13:2, hail Christ as the true physician and medicine of life. Aphrahat, in his 'Demonstrations' II: 92 explicates as follows. "Christ, the good doctor has transmitted His power to heal and forgive the sins to the Apostles and to the bishops and priests after them."

The Ecclesia, as noted earlier, is the 'primordial' Sacrament of God's forgiveness. The Church, acting as the vicar of Christ, actualises forgiveness that flows from God to the really repentant through the Sacrament called Confession or Penance or 'Reconciliation' as it is sometimes referred to. The authority of the Church for this Sacrament is summarily sanctioned by the Founder through His utterances, as recorded in Mt. 16:19 and Mt. 18:15-17. According to the Anglican Theologian, John Macquarrie, 'Confession' has as much claim to be called 'dominically' instituted, as baptism and Eucharist. It is on the basis of Jn. 20:23, that he makes this inference. This Sacrament is a spiritual reconciliation, firstly with the all loving and gracious God, Who in His paternal affection welcomes back the guilty and the gruesome and secondly with the Ecclesia. The 'Mother Church' in Her maternal love cleanses the confessed, of his or her iniquities and lapses. Thus men and women have a sigh of relief, when they receive the divine grace through this Sacrament of the Church. It is because, they are assured by the 'confessor' the Church, that no more would they have to live in the fear of eternal damnation or the scare of being crushed either here or hereafter under the juggernaut of their own actions; but rather inherit the Kingdom of God. Theologically, the effect of Confession is that sins and their imprints, if any, are completely wiped off. Therefore, one need not have to worry about the past 'sinful days and life', nor should guilt- consciousness possess the individual. An ancecdote from His Excellency Cardinal Jaimi Sin, the presiding Archbishop of Manila, Philippines, will elucidate this point. This is narrated by Rev. Dr. Kurian Mattom, the present Principal of the St. Thomas College, Palai, Kerala, in an article published some time ago, in the religious magazine 'Dukharono'. A lady who claimed to have frequent visions of Jesus, approached the archbishop and told him about her 'Christ-experience'. The archbishop told her that he would believe, only if she could tell him of certain of his 'secret misdeeds' that he had confided to his confessor. The lady replied that she would ascertain them from Jesus Himself, when He willed to grant her vision again. A few months passed by. The lady came running to the archbishop early one morning. The prelate politely asked her whether Jesus did divulge the 'secrets'. 'No'! The lady quietly replied. Hurriedly, however, she continued: "I asked Jesus persistently about it. He explained emphatically: 'when somebody confesses with a contrite heart, the sins and their effects are completely wiped off from My mind, and once I forgive any sin I forget it for ever'. That was all". Naturally, this Sacrament can be administered as and when a candidate feels that he or she has sinned. In the Greek East, Gregory of Nyssa classified 'sins' into different categories like 'lesser' sins and 'major or capital' ones. There are three 'capital' sins, namely apostosy, adultery and murder. St. Basil's list is more comprehensive. In the Latin West, Aquinas introduced two categories of sins. They are termed 'mortal or deadly' and 'venial'. This latter, does not turn away a sinner completely from God. To illustrate, they are like loitering without losing the way. In the Sacrament of 'Confession' the 'matter' element is 'Penance' while the 'form' factor is the 'absolution' by the officiator. There are three stages in this Sacrament. The first is a genuine sorrow for the sins committed. Technically it is called contrition. Secondly, there must be a confession of sins. It behoves the believers to draw nigh unto the priests with great confidence and to reveal all sins to them. Finally, there is conversion. It is the determination to 'sin no more'.

The early Christians believed that the result from 'Confession' was reconciliation with the Ecclesial community as such. In fact, this thinking is what we glean from St. Paul's Epistle to Corinthians. Letter of St. James, written between A.D. 50-57, gives a vivid account of the part played by the community in the Sacrament of Confession. In the 'Didache' or 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles', public confession of sin is prescribed. However, by the 3rd century the role of the clergy began to be significant. It was mainly because pastoral considerations were making the observance of old practices difficult. Yet, public confession was continued. By the sixth century, monks developed the system of confessing lapses in monastic vows and 'sins' to a 'soul friend'. During their visits to villages and rural regions they began to hear confession of the people privately. Penances of varying types were prescribed by these monks. They were not fixed arbitrarily. But they were in accordance with the penitential manuals and tariff codes that were developed during this period, both by the East and West. Eventually, tariffs were replaced by prayers. Also at this time, parish priests began to hear individual confessions. Thus came into practice private or auricular Confession, followed in the Roman and Orthodox traditions. The IVth Lateran Council of the Roman Church made annual confession an official Sacrament. By convention, it had become so, among the Syrian sections of Christianity.

"Tend my sheep" commanded the resurrected Christ to Peter, the Apostle. The 'why' and 'how' aspects of the Ecclesia, are summarised in this simple but dictating 'dominical' directive. For a better appreciation of this contention and its content, a few Gospel events and their implications are to be borne in mind. The first of which is, that though Jesus had founded the earthly Ecclesia as part of His public ministry itself, He did not disclose the purpose then and there. Jesus, in His wisdom deferred the disclosure as if awaiting the "fullness of time". When the risen Lord felt that the 'hour' had come, He commanded to 'tend and feed' His 'lambs' and 'sheep', as is recorded in Jn. 21:16-18; thereby, Jesus furnished the rationale for the Ecclesia. The second fact to be remembered is the implication of the imagery of 'sheep tending', as it expounds the 'how' aspect of the Ecclesial functioning. A shepherd's complete concern is the safety of each sheep, from attacks of animals, ailments, and the like. Obviously, there must be a strong and safe hold. This should be well guarded at all times, climes and sides. The sheep must be fed properly and tended promptly. Also, they must be rescued from the ravines into which they have fallen. They must be led to green pastures and still waters. Services of many personnel, with varied talents and training are essential and unavoidable. The Ecclesial hierarchy provides all these requirements to the offsprings of the 'sheep and lambs', that Christ entrusted with Simon Peter. The third fact is, that Christ's commands at the close of the Gospel of Matthew are indicative of the multifarious functions that the Apostolic College would have to undertake. Besides baptising and preaching Jesus had implied other functions in the ministry. For, the ministry or vocation that Jesus handed over to Peter and the Apostles, was one to be performed in perpetuity until the Parousia. Further, it would not spare any part of the world either. Quite naturally problems and solutions concerning control, gradation and delegation of authority were all inherent in the words 'tend and feed'. The logical outcome was the Ecclesial hierarchy. In other words, it originated due to the exercise or execution of a decree of Christ to Peter. Finally, the ringing words of Jesus, that His mission was to fulfil and not to destroy, afford ample justification for the Ecclesial institution and orders. Hierarchy was an integral part of the Jewish religion. More than once did Jesus submit Himself to Jewish canons. Never did He denigrate the system, despite His devastating denunciation of the rigid, relentless and remorseless interpretation of the 'Law' by the scribes and sacerdotal supremos. Considering all this, it can be authoritatively asserted that the hierarchical structure was inlaid in the 'dominical design' of the founding of the Ecclesia. Of course, it became manifested only when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles and directed them, to 'lay their hands' on the other 'selected souls'. The 'matter' in this Sacrament is the 'laying on' of hands, while the 'form' is the prayer for 'grace'. The 'Holy Orders', is nothing less than the manifestation of Apostolicity, which is an integral 'aspect' of the Ecclesia.

Imbibing the spirit and significance of the words and works of the Master, as well as the then prevailing pattern of the synagogues, the Apostles appointed 'Presbyters' in local churches. It was by 'laying on' of hands on a 'few selected', and invoking the grace of the Holy Spirit, as mentioned in Acts 6 and Tim 4:27. 'Presbyter' is derived from the Greek word 'Presbyteroi', meaning 'elder'. They were to supervise the community. Although the word 'priest' is derived from 'Presbyteroi' the term 'priest' is the translation of the Greek word 'hiereus'. The Primitive Church used the word 'priest' in the first place to Christ. Ecclesiologically, He is verily the Priest and the High Priest eternal. In certain communities, 'elders' began to preside over the communal conventions. They were called by the Greek term 'episkopos', meaning bishops. In due course, the 'episkopos' began to preside over the 'thanksgiving service' called the 'Eucharistic' celebration and instruct the catechumens, besides overseering and general administration. The function of the bishops and elders overlapped in a few communities. This is evident in Acts 20 and 1 Pet 5. Another set of ministers, called 'diakonoi', the Greek term for 'deacon', was also prevalent. The prototype of this ministry is found in that of Stephen and his companions as seen in Acts 6:1-6, despite they were not really called deacons. The 'deacons' assisted the bishops both in their liturgical and administrative functions. Unlike the bishops and the deacons, the presbyters did not have full-time ministry. Other than this general picture nothing more specific can be gathered from the NT accounts. In the formative period, many an outward structural change must have taken place. By the beginning of the 2nd century, however, the three - tired ministry emerged. This was not on the basis of difference in the 'grace' of priesthood, but on the basis of authority and hierarchy. Accordingly, there was one bishop for each town, a presbyter for each local church. The deacon assisted the bishop. This threefold distinction was flexible. Both in the West and the East, there were minor orders like sub-deacons, lectors, acolytes, porters etc. In this context, two observations are worth noting. As per the Syrian tradition, the NT priesthood has a direct link with that of Moses and Aaron, Yahweh's own choices . As a sequel, in one of the West Syriac hymns, priesthood is extolled as being honoured both on earth and in heaven alike, while kingship is described as honoured only in this world. The second one is the dictum of Ignatius of Antioch, that wherever the bishop be, there is the 'Catholic' Church. He held that the role of the bishops is essential for preserving doctrinal unity. A bishop can command the obedience of the community. His aim should not be subjection but fellowship, as Acts 15, 1 Cor 5 and 2 Cor 2 specify. Precisely, the bishop needs the intercession, consolation and co-operation of the community. In the 'Apostolic Tradition' of Hippolytus, there is a clear description of the rite of ordination. With this rite coming into common usage, there came up a distinction in status between the clergy and the laity. The former was deemed 'sacred and holy', while the latter, secular and profane. It was Cyprian, who referred the Presbyters by the term 'priests', as they began to celebrate the Eucharist as a sacrifice. A side effect to these developments during the 3rd century, was that while the liturgical role of the bishops and the priests became well pronounced, that of the deacon turned out to be insignificant. It came to be considered as a step to priesthood. By about the 6th century, the bishops began to exercise certain executive and judicial functions in civil administration, due to a combination of circumstances. Consequently, they started to put on the gowns and garments of such civil and judicial officials and also wear their insignias. Besides, theological and ecclesiological writings like those of Chrysostom and St. Augustine established the 'Holy Orders' on sound footing. 'His will' is fulfilled in His Ecclesia.

This Sacrament is directly 'for' and 'to' the Ecclesia. It has a special significance within the Sacramental structure as a whole. This is because, it confers spiritual authority and grace for the ministration of all other Sacraments. Rev. Sr. Dr. Sophy Rose, explicates: "It is the priests who impart the royal priesthood, through administering baptism to the faithful. They celebrate the Eucharist, the Sacrament of reconciliation. In other words, although ministerial priesthood is from the Church, without this, the Church cannot exist.... Hence, there is basic complementarity between the nature of the Church and priestly vocation". Therefore, it is to be pronounced that the Ecclesia and this Sacrament of 'Holy Orders' are equally primordial. For the Church, Christ is the 'High Priest'. Priesthood is the insignia of both Christ and the Church. 'Ministerial Priesthood', as distinct from the 'royal priesthood' which is conferred on all by Baptism, is a sacramental gift of God to a few 'called' or 'selected' for public ministry. Even Jesus, submitted Himself to this Sacrament for receiving grace. Opinion is of course divided, whether it was from John the Baptist or from the old priest Simeon of the Temple that He obtained it. Calvin points out, citing Acts 3:23, that St. Paul also had the 'hands laid' upon him. It is a ministry of both Word and Sacraments. By the former the faith of the Ecclesia is edified, fortified, expressed and communicated, along with the proclamation of peace. The latter, namely, the Sacraments, are concisely for the 'safety of the souls'. While the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches stress on the Sacramental aspects, Protestantism emphasises on the Preaching function. It can be seen without much difficulty that ministerial priesthood is a safeguard from free lance public ministry. Special ministry checks the unwholesome and unholy system of the 'blind leading the blind'. As Owen C. Thomas, the Protestant theologian points out in the book, 'Introduction to Theology', even Luther maintained that a special ministry is essential to the well being of the Church, without involving any theological distinction of status between the priests and the laity. The authority of the Christian Gospel and ministry are not established by majority vote. For the Christian ministry, there is an ontological dimension. It is technically called 'character'. This is the development of an 'inner calling' or 'vocation' through ecclesial discipline. 'Ordination' to any particular order is given only once. Its vows are to be renewed from time to time. It cannot be denied that in the NT, several kinds of ministry with different degrees of fullness are recognized. Some of them are of greater authority than others. As Erns Kasemaan suggests in the essay 'Ministry and Community in the new Testament', even St. Paul recognizes not nominal differences of function only, but real gradation in 'order' and authority. One wonders at his comment, 'Equality is not for Paul, a principle of Church Order'. What Jesus condemns is the 'seeking' of power and pre-eminence. With this taboo, He commissioned the Apostles to be His ambassadors and plenipotentiaries with power of transmission to those found fit. Equally what Peter deprecated was 'simony', the purchase of Ecclesial office by money. This is what is condemned in the story of Simon Magus, as recorded in the 'Acts' 8.

It is not only in the exhortations of the early Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome, but in the writings of the revolutionary reformer Calvin also, that the absolute necessity of 'ordained' and 'ordered' ministry is seen. What John Macquarrie observes is worth recording. "One could hardly find a stronger or more persuasive statement than the one given by Calvin. He calls the ministers Christ's substitutes". Calvin writes in the 'Institute of Christian Religion IV iii. 170', "neither are the light and heat of the sun, nor meal and drink, so necessary to sustain and cherish the present life, as is the apostolical and pastoral office to preserve a Church in the earth".

"The 'Last Supper' of Lord Jesus was the first Eucharist", observes Rev. Liam Kelly. Since then, through thick and thin the Church has zealously carried out Christ's command to the Apostles, "Do this, in remembrance of me". St. Luke's Gospel 22:21 and St. Paul's Ist Ep. to Cor. 11:25, record these 'Words of Institution'. But, it is well to remember that, even before a single word of Paul's epistle or Gospels was written, the Sacrament of Eucharist had come to be ceremoniously observed by the Christian community. Therefore, it is antecedent or prior to the NT. Yet there should not be any misunderstanding that the Christians simply took over the sacrificial rite of the then prevailing Qumran or Essene sects. The Liturgical scholar Stegemann Hartmut poignantly points out, "there can be no question of the Eucharist having been celebrated at Qumran or of the Christians having taken it over from the Essenes". This is taken from his work 'The Library of Qumran'.

If this Sacrament is the concluding event of Christ's public ministry, it is the inauguration of the public function of the Ecclesia. Through this Sacrament, the 'Preached Word' reaches its culmination. In other words, 'action' adds authenticity and provides ineffability to utterances. The Eucharist is evidently the primary Sacrament of the Primordial Sacrament, the Ecclesia. Naturally, the Church hails it, the 'Sacrament of the Sacraments' or the paradigm of all Sacraments. For, it is the Sacrament revealed by the Father, through the voice of the OT Prophet Malachi, incorporated by the Incarnate Son through the 'Words of Institution' and enlivened by the life-giving Spirit through His descent upon It in response to the invocation of the vicar of Christ. As for the Church, She draws Her vital energy through the 'grace' bestowed on this Sacrament by the Triune God. Assuredly, it is the abiding vitality in the life of the Ecclesia. As the Church received the Sacrament from the Lord, She bequeaths it as a hallowed treasure, to every succeeding generation for celebration and revitalisation.

The different names attributed to this Sacrament reflect the richness of it. To substantiate, the following facts may be glossed over. Initially it was celebrated as a ceremony of gratitude for what Jesus endured for mankind. Hence, the Apostles and the primitive Christians christened it in Greek, the 'Eucharist', denoting 'thanksgiving'. Even today the Christian Church has not given up this 'type' of thinking. In the Greek speaking East, the great prayer of 'thanksgiving' at the altar is called 'anaphora', which means offering or 'thing carried up' in sacrifice. In Roman use, the bread and wine set out for the thanksgiving are known 'oblata'. Its equivalent in Syrian usage contains many meanings. Offerings, Sacrifice, Prayer for the holy Qurbana or Mass are some of them. Besides being a thanksgiving, Eucharist is precisely a praise too. So far as the Church is concerned the connotation of the term, brings in a plethora of overtones. It is not a mere memorial of the words and acts of Jesus, who was entombed corporally centuries ago. The words 'do this' are deemed to be surcharged with sacrificial significance. This certainly is the conclusion from the contention of St. Paul. In fact, he sends out an awe-inspiring warning, when he forbids the unworthy from receiving the Eucharist, which is 'a spiritual banquet'. Conceded, that the Christians bring to their mind, in this Sacrament, all that transpired when Jesus lived. Nonetheless they are not the central points of the Eucharist. It is mainly a 're-enacting and a renewal' in the present, of the 'Christ-events'. The essential element in the Eucharist is not man's remembrance but commemoration of Christ's death and resurrection as found in I Cor:11. The Eucharist has an eschatological dimension too. So, the Parousia is extolled with steadfast hope and assured anticipation. In the 'Time Scale' the Eucharist unifies the past, present and the future. Differently put it is not a perfunctory giving of gratitude to a past event. It is rather, participation in 'grace-continuum' in the 'space-time continuum'. The result is that the sinner becomes sanctified and purified. St. Ephrem makes use of the imagery of the burning coal, to refer to the Eucharist. Obviously it is taken from the vision of the great prophet Isaiah. Though touched by the red hot coal, Isaiah's lips did not burn, rather he himself became purified and sanctified. Again, blessed with the 'gift of the inner eye' from the Eucharist, the mortal receives replies to the riddles of birth and death. Verily, death is dissolved and immortality is brought before the eyes of the humans, in the 'Eucharistic Sacrament'. This is the grand vision on the Eucharist, which all the saints have sung in ecstacy. The life of 'God's people' in the generations gone-by, and yet to come are spiritually integrated into one whole union, firstly with the life of the living generation and then as a communion with Christ. Proudly therefore, Ignatius of Antioch eulogises Eucharist as a 'bond' among Christians and a link with Christ. To St. Ephrem, Eucharist is the 'medicine for immortality'. St. Thomas A' Kempis extols Eucharist as the grace that restores strength for the soul.

More often than not, this Sacrament is hailed the 'Holy Communion'. Originally, it was a simple informal meal 'among the community of believers'. Still, right from the very beginning it was distinct from the 'agape' or love-feast, prevailing among certain other organisations and communities. The answer to the question how, is provided by the following contention. The 'bread and wine', the essential elements in the communal meal of Christians came to be regarded as 'holy', 'spiritual sustenance'. The real reason for this belief is that Jesus Himself is the fountain-head of this tradition of offering bread and wine, in perfect fulfilment of the pronouncement in prophet 'Malachi' 1:10. St. Paul has dwelt on this theme at length in one of his epistles. It is common knowledge that the original characteristics or sometimes acquired attributes of a thing, determines its nature. May be on the basis of this maxim, the 'Didache', the oldest extant liturgy of the Church, declares, "To us, thou has given spiritual food and drink through thy servant". The narration of the Most Rev. Sheehan in his book, 'The Sacrifice of the Mass' is quite fascinating. "The 'Bread' of the 'Last Supper' was indicated in the very name of the town where Christ was born. Bethlehem means the House or Home of Bread. The 'Wine' of the 'Last Supper' was spoken of by the ancient Jewish Patriarch Jacob. On his death bed, he delivered the sublimest message to his son Judah".... that from him would be descended the Messiah who would wash his robe in 'wine' and his garment in the blood of the grape". The basis of Sheehan's surmise is found in Gen. 49:8-11. Reference must also be made to what Dr. J.S. Whale brings out through a lecture that he delivered at the Cambridge University, during the Michaelmas of 1940. He opines that mankind has attempted more than once to alter the 'constitutive elements' of the Eucharist. In support, he says that the evidences of the catacombs suggest that the Eucharist of the early Church was celebrated with fish, perhaps as a thanksgiving of Christ's feeding of the five thousand. The Kollyridians, a Christian community of the fourth century, used something like cheese-cakes. Much later, a Protestant sect, called Mennonites in Frisia, a part of Germany, practised mutual feet-washing, as celebration of the Eucharist, in deference to the writ of Jesus as recorded in the moving words of St. John's Gospel 13. A heretical sect, used 'aqua' or water instead of wine, and thus they earned the nickname 'Aquarians'. Yet, Dr. Whale correctly concludes that 'bread and wine' 'the original elements are what which are used by the Church, even today. No doubt, the more the things change the more they remain the same. When these elements receive the grace of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharistic celebration, they are no longer 'bread and wine'. Apparently they remain so, but in reality, they have become 'heavenly' 'Bread and Wine'. In other words, by some 'mystery' of the Eucharist, they turn out into the 'body and blood' of Christ, the Saviour. To put it precisely, the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist eclipsed the concept of Eucharist as a communal meal and established It as the 'holy communion'. At this juncture, it is to be recalled that the exaggerated stress in the Roman Catholic Church, on the social aspect of the Eucharist is corrected by the Encyclical 'Mysterium fideii', promulgated in 1965, by Pope Paul VI.

By the close of the 1st century, if not earlier, Christians began to revere the Eucharist as a Sacrifice and Feast of the Saviour Jesus. It was hailed, 'hallowed, mysterious and unique', because, Jesus Himself was the Sacrificer and the Sacrifice, or the giver of the Feast and the Feast itself. The 'Didache', the earliest document of the 'Teachings of the Lord through the twelve Apostles', applies the appellation 'sacrifice' to the 'Eucharist'. Ancient Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Justin the Martyr, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Irenaeus, etc. considered Eucharist to be a sacred sacrifice. The observation of Marcel Metzger, in the Book 'History of the Liturgy' is worth quoting. "The oldest description of the Eucharistic celebration is in the 'First Apology' of St. Justin". From the 'Apologia', that Justin sent to the then Roman Emperor, about A.D. 200, the following points can be picked. In the sacrificial service of the Eucharist, there were Bible readings, Offertory, Liturgy and Communion. 'Apostolic Tradition' of Hippolytus contains the earliest elaborate Eucharistic prayer, now extant. By the 3rd century, the ritualistic and sacrificial aspect became more formalistic. This was given official confirmation, with emperor Theodocius making Christianity the state religion. Another significant development also took place almost at this time. Eucharistic sacrifice became what is called, 'Leitourgia' in Greek, signifying a service in the name of or on behalf of the people. 'Liturgy' was celebrated by bishops and priests. The congregation, attended and watched rather than 'participated'. 'Seeing' the sacrifice silently till the words of dismissal in Latin, 'Ite missa est', were announced, became the norm. The word 'Mass' that is used to signify the Eucharistic sacrifice, is actually formed from the above quoted phrase. About the year 500 A.D, King Gundolald of Burgandy asked in a letter to Bishop Avitus of Vienna as to the meaning of the phrase. The Bishop replied that it was a common usage in the courts and cathedrals and it meant "go, the congregation is dismissed". Feeling of fright and fear were instilled by the declarations of Cyril of Jerusalem and John Chrysostom. While the former spoke of the 'presence of Jesus' in the Eucharist 'as the most terrifying hour' the latter depicted the 'table of sacrifice', as a place of 'terror and shuddering'. Cyprian expatiates on the 'terrifying consequences' of desecrating the Sacrament. The hymns of Ephrem and the misals written by many Church Fathers too, had this effect on the minds of the congregations. For Irenaeus, the Eucharist is the 'new oblation of the new covenant' which the Ecclesia was privileged to receive through the Apostles, and subsequently offer to God. A superstition that after 'seeing the Eucharist, a person would not die on that day', also chanced to crop up in the minds of men. Perhaps, the fall out of too much of awe! An interesting episode is narrated by Rev. Fr. Liam Kelly, in the article 'Story of the Mass'. Back-benchers who could not 'see' the celebration, used to shout to the officiating priest 'Higher, Sir, Higher'.

The Eucharist is said to consist of two parts, the Offertory and the Oblation. This feature has historic roots. Offertory denoted the bread and wine, that the people used to bring to the church in the early periods as offerings. Or better, they may be styled symbols of their 'lives'. They were treated as 'life-symbols' because, the bread made of wheat, was the staple food and wine extracted from grapes was the main drink. Together they sustained human life. The congregation used to 'offer', these, in response to hearing the 'glad' news or the 'gospel' as it was called, or the 'Evangelion' as referred to by the Greek term. The priest then took these 'symbols of lives' to the sanctum, offered them at the altar, to be incorporated in the body of Christ, Who was supposed to be present mystically. The priest here 'acts' as Christ, who invites every one to His Table, where He is the host of the Feast as well as the Feast itself. The priest now performed the second part of the Eucharist, namely Oblation. The core of the Oblation is the 'breaking of the bread' or the 'fraction ceremony' as it is called in Liturgical language. Christ is made known to the congregation through 'fraction ceremony' and distributing Him in 'Holy Communion'. The whole 'act', thus viewed, gets a new dimension. The congregation, as part and parcel of the Ecclesia, which is the mystical body of Chirst, is joined to the head, Christ Himself through the 'offerings'. Christ and the congregation, together then perform the Sacrifice. The congregation thus 'participates' in the sacrificial act. The entire act becomes a 'holy Oblation of the whole Church'. Christ intercedes as the priest, and receives the Oblation as King and Lord. This is the mystery of the Eucharist. The description by Gregory Dix, the great authority on Liturgy, in his classical work.' The Shape of the Liturgy' is to be incorporated here. He says that originally the celebration of the Eucharist comprised of a scheme of seven different actions. "At the Last Supper, our Lord took bread; gave thanks over it; broke it, distributed it; He took a cup of wine, gave thanks over it; and handed it to His disciples". Dix continues, "the liturgical tradition reduced these seven actions to four; the offertory, bread and wine are taken together and together are placed on the altar; prayer of thanksgiving, the presiding official gives 'thanks' to God over bread and wine together; the fraction, the bread is broken; and the communion, bread and wine are distributed together".

Theologians of early period brought out a few theories on Eucharist. In surveying the most important of them, one should not become oblivious to the fact that, 'Eucharist' is beyond logical analysis as it is essentially a 'mystery'. It will ever remain a mystery, even to the heavenly hosts. It must be admitted that underlying these divergent theories and hotly debated arguments, there is the insatiable alertness and alacrity to 'arrive' at the truth. This deserves appreciation. All the theologians agree that in the Eucharist, 'bread and wine' constitute the 'form' while 'words of institution' make the 'matter'. Similarly, there is unanimity that, this is a repeatable Sacrament. Another point of general agreement is that, the 'elements' in the Eucharist become the body and blood of Christ, as a result of Eucharistic celebration. There are differences in interpretations. One view is known the 'figurative' or 'symbolic' or 'allegoric'. The other is called 'realistic' or 'conversion' theory.

This theory stressed the distinction between the visible elements and the reality they represented. On the authority of Dr. J.N.D. Kelly, it may be mentioned that, documents like 'The Apostolic Constitutions', 'Serapion's Liturgy', writings of Gregory of Nazianzus, and works of Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusthathius of Antioch, Macarius of Egypt, Athanasius of Nicene fame, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine, all upheld this theory. As a representation, the observations of Ambrose and Augustine may be summarily stated. St. Ambrose asserts that in the Eucharist, what is perceived after consecration is only a 'sign' of what is actually there. In Augustinian analysis, there is the bodily form that is 'seen' and the 'spiritual fruit' that is tasted by 'faith'. It should not be forgotten that the 'symbolic' theologians never denied the 'change' in the elements. They only emphasised that the 'change' is not physical, but to be apprehended by 'the eye of faith' alone, or to be understood in the 'spiritual' sense only.

What is called 'conversion' theory began to gain ground both in the Latin West and Greek East, since the time of its exposition by Cyril of Jerusalem. In fact, Cyril of Jerusalem is regarded as the pioneer of Conversion theory. Briefly, his argument is as follows. As a result of the invocation or epiclesis, the Holy Spirit descends upon the 'elements' and 'converts' or 'changes' them into the 'body and blood' of Christ. Gregory of Nyssa took up this doctrine. He contended that the nature of the visible objects are 'transelemented' and acquired the form of Christ's 'body and blood'. Gregory of Nazianzus seems to have changed his earlier 'symbolic' stance. Chrysostom speaks of "eating Christ, even of burying one's teeth, in His flesh. The wine in the chalice is identically that which flowed from His pierced side". In parenthesis, it may be pointed out that Philexinus of Maboog, the Syrian Orthodox saintly prelate of later period, echoes the remarks of Chrysostom, about the wine in the cup. In a letter, he writes: "There came forth blood and water, baptismal water, together with the blood that brings absolution; by water the font was indicated; by blood the holy mysteries which cleanse us from sin, every time we receive them". It may be a poetic presentation, because the Syrian Orthodox Church does not accept the 'Conversion' theory as such. For Chrysostom, the elements are 'refashioned' or 'transformed'. The Alexandrian and the Antiochian schools accepted the 'conversion' theory by the 5th century. Theodore of Mopsuestia argued, that at the 'Last Supper' Jesus never used the word 'symbol', but explicitly expressed "this is my body and blood". The logical soundness of this argument may force a layman like the present author to reflect as follows. If water blushed and became wine when it saw its Lord at Cana, could not such a miracle take place at the 'words' of Lord Jesus at the 'Last Supper'. Nestorius too, nodded to the 'Conversion' stand. A few monophysites also subscribed themselves to this theory and held that after the epiclesis the elements became different 'substances'. The moderate Antiochian, Theoderet, reacted against them. He held that there was no 'transformation of substance'. They are to be deemed as 'made', or 'changed' into the 'vehicle of divine grace'. This is a 'spiritualistic' interpretation and it amplifies the 'mystery' of the Eucharist. The Antiochian Church seems to have held on to this theory, ever since. In the West also, 'conversion' theory began to exert its influence to such an extent that even Ambrose and Augustine, who both were originally supporters of the 'symbolic' theory, became 'converts' to 'conversion' theory, as pointed out by Dr. J.N.D. Kelly. It is another matter that Augustine's thought passes from Christ's 'Sacramental' to 'His mystical body'. Dr. Kelly's following observation also is very worth remembering. He continues that, if any Western theologian of this time has treated the elements as 'symbols', there is a reason for it. It was because they affirmed that there existed an inexplicable or mysterious relation between the 'symbol' and the 'things symbolised'. So, Dr. Kelly contends that the West adopted the 'realistic' or the 'conversion' dogma. A natural question arose, regarding the 'cause' of conversion. Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa in the East and Ambrose in the West held that it lay in the priest's invocation of the 'words of institution'. Serapion, in his Liturgy and Cyril of Jerusalem in his lectures argued that the transformation is due to the descent of the Paraclete. Theodore of Mopsuestia seems to have combined these two views. The Syriac Orient by and large agreed to Theoderet's theory. By the 7th century, the celebration of the Eucharist became rigid and uniform throughout the Christian world. The main question that engaged the theologians of this time was, as to how did the bread and wine get transformed into the 'body and blood' of Christ.

The answer to the above question is the doctrine of transubstantiation. In fact, the conversion theory of the old, paved the way for this theory. The term 'transubstantiation' was employed for the first time by Archbishop Hilderbert of Toure, France in the 11th century. A century later, Pope Innocent III referred to this term in a letter to the Archbishop of Lyons. The Scholastic theologians explain the theory very subtly. They introduced the concepts of 'substance' and 'accidents' as a premise of the doctrine. The former signifies the underlying and unchanging reality of a thing; the latter, namely accidents, are the qualities like colour, smell etc. After consecration, 'reality' changes; 'accidents' remain the same. Aquinas held that this 'change' takes place, at the conclusion of the consecration, 'automatically' and independently of the merit of the officiator. This theory is known as 'ex opere operato'. In 1215, the 'Lateran Council' used it in a Church document. Since then, it has remained the official doctrine of the Roman Church, inspite of explicit challenges from Protestants and suppressed sentiments from Syrian circles. Here it must be noted that in Protestantism, there is no uniform theory on the Eucharist. Luther did believe in the 'real presence' of Christ in the Eucharist. He explained it using the term 'consubstantiation' instead of 'transubstantiation'. According to this theory, after consecration the 'presence' of Christ's body and blood would 'co-exist' in the 'bread and wine'. Calvin upheld the 'symbolic' theory. For him, 'bread and wine' are 'signs' of the 'body and blood' of Christ. In Anglicanism, there are three views on Eucharist. One upholds that there is 'real presence' of Christ, as a result of either transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Archbishop Temple of Canterbury's comment is worth citing. He opines that if 'substance' is defined as 'value', transubstantiation is made more acceptable; otherwise, consubstantiation is exactly correct. The second stand is called 'Receptionism'. It states that the 'presence' of Christ is in the heart of the recipient. The third one is terned 'Virtualism'. It is the dogma that the Eucharist is Christ's body and blood not in 'substance' but in 'spiritual power'. The Council of Trent that was held by the Roman Church during 1545 to 1563, to 'set off' the influences of Protestantism, affirmed 'transubstantiation'. It thus became a bench-mark in the doctrine of Eucharist. The conclusions of the Trent Council were made more specific with the publication in 1570 of the Roman Misal, which remained unchanged till Vatican II. With a view to facilitate greater participation of the 'community of believers' in the Eucharistic Sacrament, 'vernacular' Mass is presently allowed by Vatican. Moreover, it acknowledges that the Eucharist is not an end in itself, but a stimulus to action in faith. Reference must be made to a line of 'thinking' among a few Catholic theologians, on the 'conversion' aspect of the Eucharist. It is designated 'transfiguration' or 'transignification'. It states that, after epiclesis, the elements assume a 'new mode' of existence. But 'transubstantiation' is still the official dogma of the Roman Church. So far as the Syrian Orthodox Church is concerned, there is no 'official' dogma about the change of the elements, although the Church firmly believes that the 'bread and wine' do become the 'body and blood' of Christ through some mystery. The following anecdote will throw much light on this. When Gregorius of Parumala, Bishop of Niranam diocese, Kerala, who was canonised in 1948 by the Orthodox Church, was laid up with some fatal gastric ailment, he was medically advised to take wine. St. Gregorius replied that on account of his monastic vows he could not consume any drink that was heady. 'Your Grace, what is that you drink in the Eucharist', asked somebody who was attending on him. Pat came the reply. 'After the mass, what I consume is not wine, but the blood of my Saviour, Lord Christ.'

It is quite astounding that despite the doctrinal controversies and external influences, a basic pattern has persisted in this 'Supreme Sacrament' all throughout the ages. Certain words and actions in the Eucharist are universal among Episcopal Churches, despite dogmatic differences among them. The spontaneous surmise is that the Eucharist, founded as it is, by the 'Founder Himself', supplies the structure and support for the growth of Christian life. This requires explicitation. By participating in the Eucharistic Sacrament, the 'beings' at large 'let in' the 'One Eternal Being'. How? it may be asked. The Latin term 'Sacrum Convivium', explains it best. That is, by taking part in the Eucharist, the egocentric selfhood is sublimated. It is rather reconciled, first with the community and subsequently with God. In this Sacrament, the priest and the congregation together become one body and thus effectualise the ethos of the Ecclesia. As St. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 10:17 "We, who are many, are One body, for we partake of the same loaf". This is the transfiguration of humanity or deification, as patristic proclamations preach. The spiritual effect of this holy Sacrament transcends human comprehension. As in 'Jacobs ladder', the ethereal descends to the earthy and the earthy is elevated to the ethereal. This Sacrament is substantially the Sacrament of 'Corpus Christi', the body of Christ. It is the Sacrament in which Christ the King and the High Priest, offers Himself as the host for the salvation of humanity.

"Whom God hath joined, man shall not render asunder". This is not a casual comment but a definite decree of Christ. Verses 2 to 8 which precede the above command in Chapter 10 of Mk. and verses 3 to 12 of Mt. 19 would speak sufficiently on the views of Christ, regarding the solemnity of matrimony. Briefly, the teaching of Jesus on marriage focuses on its unity and indissolubility. In Mt. 27, He forbids the desire for another's wife. Surely, Jesus frowns upon extra-marital relationship, polygamy and polyandry. The Nazerene has no doubt at all that marriage is a divine dispensation from the very beginning of Creation itself. Christ was absolutely certain that once the nuptial ceremony is over, the husband and wife 'are no longer two but one' or 'one flesh' as the Greek version puts it. Marriage is really a spiritual union of blood with blood and flesh with flesh. Therefore, Jesus was categoric in His contention that permanence of marriage is what is willed by God. As a sequel, He overrules the Jewish practice which had approved divorce on certain grounds. To Christ, the union in marriage is indissolvable and irrevocable. In Mk 10: 11-12 and Lk 16:18 Jesus deprecates, if not denounces, divorce, in no unmitigating manner. Biblical scholars are of the opinon that the pure and pious Christian populace of the primitive period unflinchingly followed the precepts of Jesus, as contained in Mark and Luke. The 'permission' that Christ is said to have granted for divorce on the ground of unchastity or 'fornication' as recorded in Mt. 5:32, reflects, how His teachings were adapted and applied by Jewish converts to Christianity, who were under the spell of Mosaic Law and had not got over its hangover. Not only the sayings of Christ, but His actions too, seal marriage with the imprint of divine design, even though obviously it is a 'man-made' arrangement and 'natural institution' as old as the hills. The allusion here is apparently to the miracle of Jesus at Cana in converting water into wine, which incident has been poetically put by the burgeoning poet Byron during his University days in the following immortal and moving words. 'Water saw its Lord and blushed'. A point for reflection emerges here. The action of Jesus at Cana is acclaimed as the first miracle in His public ministry. The question is as to why did He choose 'his hour' for performing a miracle, on the occasion of 'a marriage' which by all practical parameters is a 'profane' one. The answer that it is accidental, is too commonplace. With his natural incisiveness and insight, Luther has come out with a sound argument. Although Luther denies the sacramental aspect of marriage, he is all out to extol its importance as a divine ordinance. He further writes that God did bless the married state above all others. Once it is accepted that Christ is God Incarnate, all else is theologically deducible. It is part of Providence that Jesus invoked His own 'grace' on marriage ceremony, lest it will be treated as a man-made contrivance merely to gratify carnal desire or concupiscence. For Jesus it is a divine device, whereby the selfhood of a spouse is abnegated in absorption in the other and the 'two in one' would voluntarily become instruments in the Divine plan of perpetuating creative activity. The presence and actions of Jesus at the wedding at Cana are reckoners of the divine design and guidance in the marriages which the children of Adam celebrate even to this day.

Valuing the views of the Master and the Apostles, the Church Fathers brought in a sublime conception on matrimony. While the OT prophets like Isaiah, Hosea and Ezekiel used 'marriage imagery' as a means of revealing Yahweh's inexhaustible love to Israel, His chosen people, the imagery received a wider compass in the hands of the Fathers. For them, it becomes a sign and symbol of love between God the Creator and the entire created beings. It is interpreted as a spiritual relationship, full of grace and mystery, transcending human understanding. St. Benevanture expressed that "marriage conferred 'medical grace' which calmed sexual desire and kept it within limits of fidelity." In Dem. XVIII, 836-7 Aphrahat, mentions 'marriage' among the good things God has created. Robert Murray in his book 'Symbols of Church and Kingdom' cites Ephrem's view against the Maricionite sect, that 'marriage', family and possession are 'lawful'. In defence of the Oriental thinking, especially of Semitic writers, Murray mentions elsewhere, that the thought of these authors are not to be rendered in categories that go back to Greek philosophical methods.

A vivid picture of early Christian ideals on marriage is available from the writings of Peter and Paul. In 1 Peter: 3, instructions on the mutual relationship of the spouses are given in very candid terms. Paul reinforces the idea of divorce as unacceptable. In 1 Cor. 7, he eloquently argues against the breaking up of marriage among the believers. This chapter contains both the expressed and implied doctrines on marital relationship. The Sacramental character of marriage is elucidated in the fifth chapter of Pauline epistle to Ephesians. Ignatius of Antioch held that the permission of a bishop was required for making a marriage valid. But the bull of Ignatius was not observed strictly, as the then Christians were governed by the inflexible Roman Law. According to which the 'consent' of the parties to the marriage was the most essential thing for its validity. So a few centuries elapsed without any specific religious rite or ritual of marriage. Again, it was not obligatory at this period to solemnise marriage in churches. Nevertheless, the remark of Tertullian is a pointer on the view of the theologians on matrimony. He writes, "How shall we ever be able to describe adequately the happiness of marriage which the Church unites, which the oblation confirms...." Next to St. Paul, it was Augustine who developed the understanding of marriage as a Sacrament. He asserted that marriage is a Sacrament as it symbolises the union between Christ and the Church. Two specific advantages of marriage were identified by him. Firstly, it discouraged the parties to marriage, from seeking sexual satisfaction elsewhere. Marriage, thus prevents humans from falling into sexual licentiousness. Secondly, it fosters the 'family' which is the forum for 'faith building' in children. Regarding divorce and remarriage, his humane disposition impelled Augustine to state that the innocent party could send away the culprit, but could not remarry. In the code of Emperor Justin, promulgated in A.D 542, for the Eastern Roman Empire, divorce and remarriage were permitted. The Greek East is still following this. By about the 8th century, benediction by a cleric became a condition for marriages to be ecclesiastically recognized. Another development also took place. Marriages began to be conducted in the churches. The first emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Charlemagne, decreed in the 9th century, against divorce and remarriage which had crept into Christianity due to pagan practices. Pope Alexander III's decree of the 12th century, is a landmark in the concept of marriage as a Sacrament. According to it, the basis for valid marriage was declared to be the 'mutual consent' or the 'plighted troth' of the parties to marriage. This establishes the unbreakable characteristic of marriage. Taking recourse to Pauline philosophy, marriage was once again declared to be the reflection of the eternal union between Christ the Bridegoom and Church the Bride, and hence indissoluble. To allay the prevailing apprehension that sexual relationship is sinful, the Ecclesial hierarchy reiterated that it is a Sacrament, sanctified by Christ Himself, as the High Priest. That is the implication, of the words 'Whom God hath joined' in the command of Christ. Therefore, it was impressed by the authorities that marriages solemnised in a church, by a priest, implied that all what happened in wedlock were good. Sexual union of the duly married couple is thus given a spiritual dimension. It is hailed as an act for the purging of the soul, replenishment for the body and an act whereby the mortal co-operates with the Divine, in the act of 'creation'. Naturally, more than the 'plighted troth', sexual union became the condition of consummation of marriage. So the Roman Canon Law holds that, even while divorce is not permissible, ecclesiastical sanction can be granted for invalidating marriage, if sexual union has not taken place. The Syrian Orthodox Church permits 'divorce' on certain grounds, specified in its canon called 'Hudaya Canon' authored by Greegorius Bar Hebreus, the 13th century Catholicos. This is detailed very clearly, in the catechetical book, named 'Mathopadesasaram' cited already. A Dominician theologian of Spain, by name Melchior Cano, brought out a theory in the 16th century, separating the sacramental and contractual aspects in marriage. This was made use of by many a European government as a plea and defence to bring in civil legislation to regulate Christian marriages. Pope Leo XIII, thereupon decreed, in 1880, that in 'Christian Marriage' there is no distinction between contract and sacrament. This exactly is the theology of the Syrian Orthodox Church. In the Encyclical 'Castic connubi' of Pope Pius XI, the intimate life - partnership and association involved in the holy matrimony is emphasised. Further, it acknowledges the primary purpose of procreation and the essential end of educating the offsprings, inculcating religious values. Avoiding the term 'contract' as it is too legalistic and juristic in tenor, Vat II employs the Biblical phrase 'covenant' to signify marriage, as this term brings out the intimacy in marital relationship.

In marriage, the 'matter' is the 'mutual consent', by the spouses. This may be accompanied by exchange of rings or joining of hands or by any other external act resulting from inculturation. For instance, a practice prevalent among the Syrian Orthodox Christians of India may be mentioned. A small talisman made of gold, with a cross engraved on it is tied around the neck of the bride using a cotton thread. This has been acknowledged as the result of the influence of a Hindu custom. For the Syrian Orthodox Christians elsewhere, this custom is not in vogue. The marriage ceremony of the Syrian Orthodox Church has two parts. The first one is betrothal . It is by the benediction and exchange of rings, denoting 'mutual consent' of the spouses. As there is no legal format for 'mutual consent' within the frame of the marriage service, this is to be deemed to form part of the matrimony, by implication. The second part is called the 'crowning ceremony' where 'heavenly crowns' are placed symbolically on the heads of the spouses. Undoubtedly, a very meaningul ceremony of the celestial sanction for the union in marriage. Unlike in the present period, these two services were held separately in former times. Among the Westerners, the solemnisation is by the parties themselves; the cleric is only a witness, while for the Easterners it is by the officiating clergyman, who is both the witness as well as the officiator. The 'form' of the marriage is by the exchanging of the vows or 'plighted troth', in the presence of witness. The parties to the marrriage pray for the inward and spiritual grace, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit, to enable them to keep the vows in their life time, firmly and faithfully.

Among the Episcopal Churches, marriage is not a mere contract. Nor is it an arrangement for division of labour or exchange of rights and duties. It is rather an intimate partnership of life and love as Lord Christ has visualised. The grace of marriage is an aid to constant companionship, unalloyed affection and unhampered happiness. By assigning Sacramental status to marriage, the Ecclesia has made it a bridgehead, a gateway or a channel of divine grace. Verily, through this Sacrament flows the perennial benediction on the 'family' which is also called 'domestic Ecclesia' or 'Church in miniature', as well as the nursery for inculcating Christian values in the young ones. What, Count Cavour, the Italian nation builder, commented on the family is worthy of quoting here. 'Man learns the first lessons of citizenship, between the mother's kiss and the father's caress'. The 'natural institution' called marriage, is understood by Christianity as a divine device, a sacred Sacrament, in the light of the teaching of Christ and the preaching of the god-intoxicated prelates of the Ecclesia. In conclusion, what, even the Protestant theologian John Macquarrie emphasises, is to be incorporated. "In taking marriage into the Sacramental structure, the Church has broken down the barrier between the sacred and the secular and provides for the impact of the divine grace upon our everyday activities".

"He came, He consoled and He cured". This was concisely the healing ministry of Christ. Jesus was neither apathetic not indifferent to human sufferings, like the stoics of Greece or the philosophers of the Orient. Christ's ministry was virtually one of healing. Even a cursory glance of the synoptic gospels would convince, that one third of their narratives deals with the healing ministry of the Nazerene. Mt. 4:23-4 tells how Jesus went about all Galilee, healing every disease and every infirmity among the people. Chap. 9:6 of the same Gospel speaks of the assuredness and the authority with which Christ cured the lame. In fact, healing was part of His mission of the remission of sins. On many an occasion, Jesus made use of healing as a sign and symbol of salvation from the scourge of sin. This was mainly due to the influence of then prevailing philosophy of Judaism, that sickness was the 'wage' of sin. Jn. 9:2 is an epitome of this thinking. In His eagerness to work out wholeness to the whole of humanity, Jesus gave the Apostles the power to cure diseases, before He sent them to the ends of the world on the errand of evangelisation. This is narrated in Lk 9:1-2. Mt. 10:1 and Mk 6:7, also describe that Jesus enjoined the ministry of healing on the Apostles. The last words of Jesus, as recorded in Mk 16:17-18, are classic commentaries of this mission. "....... they will lay their hands on the sick who will recover". Of course, Christ here specifies only the effect of the rite as a result of 'grace'. The mode of administering the rite, Jesus must have left to the Apostles and the Ecclesia. The Catholic Encyclopaedia comments: 'Since anointing with oil had a recognized therapeutic value among the jews, it is entirely plausible that the Apostles called this as the sign'.

The healing ministry was a common feature during the Apostolic period. Acts 3, 8 and 28, give accounts of the healings, performed by Peter, Philip and Paul. What the Church performs through the anointing of the sick, is nothing but the fulfilment of the mission of the Master and the deeds of the disciples. James 5:14-15 picturesquely describe the ritual of 'anointing the sick with oil' and its effects of curing sickness and forgiving sins. It is probable that St. James might have expounded this doctrine, due to the influence of the passage in Lev. 14:10-31, wherein anointing of lepers with oil is related to the forgiveness of sins. The passage of James cited above, is the key text for the Ecclesia to call this rite, a Sacrament. On analysis, the following deductions can be drawn from these words of James. Firstly, the remark that the elders have to 'pray over and anoint the sick in the name of the Lord', established the fact that this is very much a 'religious act and not a medical one', as Rev. Liam Kelly opines in his article on the 'Anointment of the Sick'. Secondly, there is absolutely no mention at all that this Sacrament can be administered only to a sick person whose end is drawing near. The final conclusion is that sins are absolved by anointment. On the evidence of the various passages cited, it can be surmised safely that this Sacrament has its basis in the NT. The 8th century hagiographer Bade the Venerable, who is the author of the earliest extant commentary on James, affirms that, what the Apostle had presented regarding anointment was followed by the Church since then. No wonder, the Council of Trent stated, "this holy anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ".

There are mainly three sources for gathering the 'growth and evolution' of this Sacrament. They may be enumerated as Patristic Literature, the Biographies of Saints and Liturgical Texts. It is to be admitted that there are only scanty references about the Sacrament in the writings of early Fathers like Aphrahat the Wise, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria. However, a letter written in 416 by Pope Innocent I to Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio in Italy, is an important document. Relying on the preachings of Christ and St.James he argues, that the 'oil' consecrated by a bishop can be administered both by the clergy and the laity as a Sacrament, as it has the 'grace' of the Holy Spirit. The practice of the lay people anointing the sick, however, came to a close by the 8th century. Biographical sketches, of certain holymen and women, mention that they used to anoint the sick with oil. Possidius, the first biographer of St. Augustine, informs that the saint used to visit the sick, laid his hands upon them and probably anointed them with oil. Aquinas tells the story of Saint Genevieve of Paris, who in the 4th century used to visit and anoint the sick with the oil blessed by the bishop, and in this way she healed many people. Important Liturgical texts of the early period provide the prayers, invocations and the rituals in consecrating the oil. Reference must be made to the 'Apostolic Tradition' of Hippolytus and the 'Euchalogian' of the 4th century Serapion. It is surely surprising that although centuries have elapsed, little change has been made in the formula of Serapion as found in the Roman Pontifical. Certain significant changes came in, by the 9th century. This Sacrament began to be treated as one for forgiveness rather than healing. A logical sequence was that it was clericalised, as remission of sins was the prerogative of the clergy. With the dominance of Scholasticism in the 12th century, yet another thinking also influenced the concept of this Sacrament. It began to be called the Sacrament for the dying or 'Extreme Unction'. It was Peter Lombard of France, who called it so for the first time. St. Albert the great, Aquinas, Bonaventure and Duns Scots, developed this doctrine. Prayers of healing were dropped from the rituals. Certain practical considerations also prompted the people to put this off to the dying state, and so to refer it as the 'Extreme Unction'. One such reason was the burdensome penance prescribed by the Church after confession, which was necessary before receiving unction. Yet another was, the popular view that, the one who recovered after the unction, could not marry again. The Council of Trent did not demand 'danger of death' as a condition for the validity of the Sacrament. In the early decades of the 20th century, challenges arose in the Roman Church, in calling the Sacrament 'Extreme Unction'. Biblical scholars argued that the narratives with which the NT depicts death, are positive ones as against the sombre and saddening Litanies of the funeral rites of the Church. As a result Vat II ushered in a salutary view on this Sacrament. The Council declared that the Sacrament may 'more fittingly be called Anointing of the sick'. In 1972 Pope Paul VI caused core changes in the nomenclature and concept of the Sacrament. He decreed that the ministry is to be called the 'care of the sick'. Therefore, it should be administered at the beginning of the illness. And the ministry should provide an assurance to the sick that he or she is not abandoned to fate, but cared for as a member of the Ecclesia, not only in this life, but in the life to come, if the inevitable happened.

Eastern Orthodox Churches, except the Nestorians, recognise this as a Sacrament. For the Orthodox, the principal effect of the Sacrament is regaining of physical and mental health. Among the Coptic Church, the practice of assembling the sick in churches on Monday of the Holy Week, to receive the Sacrament still survives. Luther's view is quite interesting. In his 'Babylonian Captivity', he 'allows the anointing' of one who desired it, subject to the condition that the recipient should not assert that the peace and forgiveness that it may bring, did not come from its sacramental nature. But his thesis seems to acknowledge that 'anointing' stimulates the sick. The convocations of Canterbury and York in England in 1925, approved a 'form of unction and laying of hands'. The revised Scotish and American Prayer Book, published in 1929, provides for the option to receive the rite. It is not presumptuous to proclaim that, with the increasing recognition that many diseases have psycho-somatic causes and characters, the significance of this ancient Sacrament of 'anointing the sick' is gaining greater appreciation even by the Protestant brethren.

In this Sacrament the 'matter' is the 'laying on of the hands' or as an alternative, the 'anointed oil'. The 'form' is the 'prayer for healing'. Regarding the effect of the Sacrament, the following is the summary. The Ecclesial stand is that sickness is the loss of integrity of the spiritual and the corporal aspects in human beings. The Sacrament invokes for the regaining of the lost disharmony between the two, primarily by instilling confidence in the healing power of Christ. This Sacrament imprints such 'grace' on the sick that he or she does not deem physical debility as an impediment for the union with Christ. The sick is conditioned to conform to and draw comfort from the dying Christ, who subdued the body by the power of the spirit, if the inevitable is to befall. Emphatically this Sacrament reminds, that death is not the end but the gateway for a life to eternity, in the eternal loving care of the Creator.

The spectrum of the Sacramental structure of the Ecclesia spans the life of the individual, from the cradle to the grave and beyond. Every child of the 'Holy Mother Church' can aver therefore that the Ecclesia has been 'the consolation of my life and she would be the consolation of my death too'. At every situation or station of life, the specific 'Sacrament' aims at emulating Christ and effecting union with the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit through the grace of the Triune God. This truly is a marvellous mystery of the dominical design of the Most Blessed Trinity.