gives them the right hand of fellowship, and sometimes other church officers do this also. Whatever the ceremony may be, all recognise that it is a means of grace. It puts the seal upon Baptism, which it ratifies and confirms, and brings to its completion, in admitting the baptised for the first time to the Lord's Table. Why should we not agree upon the ceremony? Why should we not follow the usage of the Greek and Roman Churches, supported by centuries of Christian tradition, rather than modern ceremonies, or even the revival of the most primitive usage of the laying on of hands? Confirmation, whatever the ceremony, is a visible sign, and it does in all the ceremonies bestow invisible grace. (4) The Roman Catholic and Greek Churches hold that Order is a Sacrament, that ordination to the ministry is a visible sign of an invisible grace. Does any Church deny that? Do not all the Protestant Churches claim that their ministry is based on our Lord's commission to the apostles perpetuated through all the ages by the ceremony of ordination? They differ as to the form of government in the Church, as to the Pope, as to Patriarchs, as to Bishops, as to the functions of Presbyters and Deacons; but all agree as to the reality of the grace of ordination. Why, then, should not this sacred institution be regarded by all as a Sacrament, not of the same worth as Baptism and the Eucharist, but nevertheless a sacred institution, a real mystery of grace? If the Eucharist is a sacrifice in any sense, the ministry which celebrates the Eucharist must be a priesthood in that same sense; and the ordination of such a ministry is sacramental in character, whatever may be said of other orders of the ministry than priesthood. (5) Marriage was the last of the Sacraments to gain recognition; and rightly so, for, though a divine institution, it is more closely connected with civil government than with religion. Nevertheless, the Christian Church has always recognised the religious element in marriage, and it has always appealed to the teachings of Jesus Christ himself as the supreme authority in marriage. The Churches of the Reformation, no less than the Roman and Greek Churches, celebrate marriages for their adherents, and are not content with marriages constituted by civil authorities. Marriage is not only a divine institution, but also an institution which Jesus Christ himself made additionally sacred. The question that concerns us here, is whether marriage is a visible sign of invisible grace. There are many difficult subsidiary questions with which the chief question seems to be inextricably involved. It is evident that the value of marriage does not depend upon the use of any particular ceremony. Any ceremony, whether simple or complex, appointed by authority of Church or State, constitutes a valid marriage. A purely civil marriage must be recognised as a valid marriage, however defective it may be on its religious side. Cohabitation is, however, necessary to make it really effective, and that is usually regarded as the matter of marriage. Any form of words that makes the marriage valid by law may be regarded as the form of marriage, for these words are the effective words. The words of institution may be pronounced by a civil or ecclesiastical authority, or by the parties to the marriage themselves. This is a sacred institution which does not depend for its validity upon any particular words uttered by Christ or his apostles, but upon a contract between the parties, ratified by Church or State. It is an unfortunate situation in the United States, that the Christian minister acts in the marriage ceremony in a double capacity, both as an officer of the civil government and as a minister of the Church, responsible to two independent and in some respects conflicting jurisdictions, so that sometimes he is troubled in conscience as to his duty under the circumstances. It would be a happy solution of many difficulties, if the State always made the civil marriage by civil officials, as in Switzerland. Then Christians might have the marriage ratified by the Church in a religious ceremony. The situation would then be similar to that of clinical baptism: valid indeed, but irregular, and only to be justified by necessity and needing supplementary religious ratification by the ministry of the Church. So, lay marriage is a valid marriage but irregular, and needing the religious ceremony to give it full sacramental value as a real means of grace and salvation. It is of immense consequence to Christianity that the Christian Churches should come to an agreement on this important subject, and then establish an understanding with the civil governments as to the laws respecting marriage. This may be accomplished by insisting only upon essentials, and reserving theories and subordinate matters for determination by particular jurisdictions. I have gone over the five Sacraments which the Greek and Roman Churches add to the two recognised by the Protestant Churches. I have shown that they all have the essential features of Sacraments, visible signs of invisible grace. They all have the scholastic parts of form and matter; although the five are not of the same high value as Baptism and the Eucharist, as Greeks and Romans agree. The Medieval Church recognised, beyond the range of the seven Sacraments, other sacred things, such as the crowning of a king or the consecration of church buildings, as Sacramentalia, also having form and matter. Some Protestants have thought that we might classify the five lesser Sacraments with these Sacramentalia rather than with the two great Sacraments; but reflection shows that this would be a mistake; because the five lesser Sacraments are in their nature more in accord with the two greater ones than they are with these Sacramentalia. The consecration of a church building is the consecration of a material thing and not of a person. How can it be a means of grace to persons as are the five lesser Sacraments? The consecration of a king is to officiate in civil not in religious functions. We can hardly think of the impartation of saving grace in this instance. The Sacraments are not for the impartation of the divine favour and blessing; they are means of grace and salvation. the The Protestant Churches should abandon their opposition to the recognition of the five lesser Sacraments as Sacraments, and limit themselves to the insistence that all superstitions, extravagances and abuses should be removed from them in the Reform of the Roman Catholic Church; and that the five lesser Sacraments should be carefully discriminated from the two greater ones, Baptism and the Eucharist. II. THE RELATION OF THE DIVINE GRACE IN THE SACRA- The divine grace conferred in the sacramental system comes from God Himself. What, then, is the relation which God maintains to that grace? 1. Sacramental Grace God the Father is the fountain of all grace, of all love and of all salvation. The grace is His grace and the salvation is His salvation. Therefore, that grace bears within itself divine characteristics. These may be summed up in these three adjectives: sufficient, efficient and irresistible. (a) The divine grace in the Sacraments is sufficient. It is amply sufficient to accomplish its purpose of salvation. The grace is really there in the Sacrament—it is there abundantly—it is there preveniently-not waiting for human action, but preceding, anticipating all human wants, and superabundant above all human needs. To this all Churches agree. (b) The divine grace in the Sacrament is efficient; it really accomplishes the divine purpose of grace. Those who use the Sacraments should have no doubt or fear lest the Sacraments fail in their effects; but should have faith, confidence, assurance and certainty that what God has promised He will most surely perform, and that the right use of the Sacraments will always be effectual to themselves and to others. There will be degrees of efficiency, depending upon circumstances and environment; but these degrees do not depend upon the divine provision, which is superabundant; or upon the priestly administrator, who merely fulfils the functions and carries out the intention of the Church, whose servant he is; but solely and alone upon the capacity of the believer to receive the grace provided. The divine grace will fill his little vessel full to overflowing all the time, good measure, pressed down and running over its utmost capacity. All the Christian Churches agree in this doctrine, however little it may be realised in practice. (c) The divine grace is irresistible. At this point the differences in Christianity appear. It is not meant in Church doctrine that it is so irresistible as to take away the freedom of the human will, on the part of those who use the Sacrament. The divine grace is irresistible when bestowed, not when withheld; when the divine energy is put forth, not when it is restrained. It is fully recognised that there are invincible obstacles in some human natures, which God might overcome by His omnipotent power, if He would; but which He will not overpower at the cost of human impotence, and which it is doubtful if He could overcome without the destruction of moral natures. In all the operations of the divine grace, there are preparatory grace and consequent grace, all of which is resistible. The irresistibility of the divine grace is at the supreme moment when man no longer resists but is passive to the putting forth of the divine power, and simply receives what God bestows. The divine power of grace is moral and not physical, except so far as the physical may be an instrument of moral influence, and not as in itself producing moral results. This doctrine of irresistible divine grace in the Sacraments originated the subsidiary theory of the opus operatum; that is, that the Sacraments are irresistible in their very use. This is thus stated by the Council of Trent: If any one saith that by the said Sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed (ex opere operato), but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace, let him be anathema. (Can. ix.) |