The Sacraments. (CONTINUED.) HITHERTO We have spoken only of those sacraments which Protestantism has at least professed to retain; though, by emptying them of those high and precious gifts which the Word of God and the Church assign to them, it has made them to appear unmeaning and almost useless ordinances. It remains for us yet to say something about "those other five, commonly called Sacraments," which the Reformers so unceremoniously rejected. The account of these ordinances which is given by the Protestant Establishment of this country is this, that “they have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." I suppose that the latter branch of this division, "partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures," is meant to refer to Matrimony; and that the rest, Confirmation, Penance, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction, are what "have grown of the corrupt following of the Apostles." We will first say a few words, therefore, about Matrimony, and then go on to speak of the other four. Now, although Protestants will not allow that Matrimony has been raised by Jesus Christ from a mere civil contract to the dignity of a Christian sacrament, yet they themselves believe that some important change was made by Him in its character and obligations; that He raised it above what it had been before: but a portion at least of their belief on this subject is not warranted by any express declaration of Holy Scripture. Protestants do not believe that marriage is precisely the same thing now that it was before the coming of Christ. For under the law of Moses the Jews were allowed to have more wives than one at the same time; and, moreover, the husband and wife were in several cases allowed to separate from one another, and to marry other persons. Now, Now, in both these respects, no persons professing themselves to be Christians consider that the Christian of the present day has the same license that the Jew had then. And why not, except because they believe that Jesus Christ has, in some way or other, changed the character and obligations of this contract between a man and his wife? But how and when did He change it? Upon the second of these points, Protestants, who profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only, can refer to His words recorded by St. Matthew (xix. 5) and by St. Mark (x. 7), where, after having repeated that saying of Adam when the first woman was made, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh" (Gen. ii. 24), He immediately adds, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." And then, in answer to a question proposed by some of His hearers about the law of Moses upon this subject of divorce, He goes on distinctly to abrogate that law, and to lay down a much higher and stricter law. I say nothing at present as to whether Protestants understand this law aright, and whether they practise it or not; at any rate, they allow that a new law was instituted, exalting in this particular the character of Matrimony, by making it an indissoluble contract; that is, a contract which, when once made, could never be broken except by the death of one or other of the parties; and so far, at least, they can allege the authority of the written Word of God for what they say. They can prove from the very letter of Holy Writ, that whereas before the coming of Christ marriage was a contract which could be dissolved for various causes, now it could no longer be dissolved. But as to the other change in its obligations-that a man cannot enter into this contract with more than one woman at a time-where is the scriptural authority for this most important law? This was not the practice of the patriarchs; it was not ordained by the law of Moses. By what authority, then, do Protestants insist upon it? Where is the text of Scripture that : enjoins it? Sometimes, indeed, they quote the words of St. Paul to Timothy, in which it is stated that " a bishop should be the husband of one wife;" and the same is repeated also concerning a deacon (1 Tim. iii. 2, 12).* But this does not prove that the same obligation is binding_also upon the laity on the contrary, Protestants have been found before now who have drawn from these same passages the very opposite conclusion-namely, that bigamy is not sinful in an ordinary Christian, because it is expressly forbidden only in the clergy. It is only natural, they have said, that something more should be required of the clergy than of the people: St. Paul requires of the clergy that they should have but one wife; it is clear, therefore, that it is allowable to the people to have more than one. This was their argument; neither is it possible, by any text of Scripture, to refute them. Whatever Protestants may say, therefore, they do, in point of fact, believe that Christ has altered the laws of Matrimony in a very important particular not mentioned in Holy Writ. All this, however, you will say, does not prove that the Catholic Church is right in calling Matrimony a Christian sacrament. Of course it does not; but this is not my purpose. I have said again and again, and I cannot repeat it too often, that I have not undertaken in these pages to prove the truth of the Catholic doctrine upon this or any other subject. I am only questioning Protestantism, and trying certain portions of it by its own standard, the written Word of God; and I say that, upon this subject of Matrimony, Protestants believe a most important truth which that standard does not warrant them in believing. They agree with Catholics in looking upon marriage as something higher and more noble now than it was under the Jewish law, inasmuch as it is now indissoluble, and then it was not; now it can be contracted with but one person only, then it could be contracted with several: but for this last assertion they cannot give any authority from the Bible, and they * The meaning of these sentences is, not that every bishop and deacon must have a wife (for St. Paul himself had none), but that no one should be admitted to holy orders, either as bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once. |