PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15025, 21 June 1912, Page 4

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.

Sir, — beg to toko strong exception, to a statement by your correspondent "John Dickson" in his reoont letter dealing with Bishop CJrossley's model prayer for the dead. Mr. Dickson says, referring to this "Westminster Assembly, that "there are more reasons why Anglicans should be bound by its decisions than there are why Presbyterians should be bound by. them," and > his subsequent remarks concerning the proceedings of the assembly would lead your readers to believe that the Anglican Church, in so far as it sanctions prayers for the dead, is isolating a principle laid down over 250 years since by an august and' representative assembly of its own clergy, appointed by a Parliament for the time being fairly expressing the mind of the English people. Now this is entirely unhistorieal, as the following facts will servo to show:—(1) The same Long Parliament which in June, 1643, convened the /Westminster Assembly of Divines had in September of the previous vear abolished, episcopacy in toto. (2) In May, 1642 (prior to the abolition of prelacy), 60 odd members of the Commons, who were either Anglicans or in sympathy with the Church of England, seceded from the Long Parliament and joined Charles I. at York. (3) Of the 151 members of the Westminster Assembly, 121 were ministers, of whom about one-half attended the sittings of 1 the assembly, and of these none were clergy of the Church of England (vide Encyclopedia Bri tannics, ninth edition, vol. 20, Preabyterianism). (4) In describing the assembly the Encyclopedia Britannica (vol. 19, I'resbyterianism) states: —"lt-was a mere council of advice to the Parliament of England, a creature of the Parliament alone. Its members . . . were chosen by parliament, and 'nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland' is one of the chief points in the ordinance." In the "Annals of England" we read:—-"This body (i.e., the assembly) ... could only debate on matters submitted to it by Parliament. Milton and other contemporaries of various shades of opinion speak in very disparaging terms of both the learning: and integrity jof these divines, who were the paid servants of the Houses (their allowance was 4s a.' day), and who, though fierce disclaimers against pluralities and nonresidence, sought eagerly for every valuable preferment." (5) " The Historians' History of the World " (vol. 20) outlines the work of the assembly as follows:-—" . . it had been resolved . . . that the Book of Common Prayer siiould bo laid aside; the form of divine worship hitherto observed should be abolished; .and a new directory, which had been framed by the assembly of divines, a creed, a catechism, and at scheme of a Presbyterian constitution of the Church, were drawn up. , In the creed all was on strict Calvinistio principles. and « peculiar stress was laid on the dootrwo of predestination." In, view'

of these facts, how can/it, be said that .ttie r | findings of : the Westminster Assembly ate •; *' '$J : binding in even the slightest degrco upon| the Church of England? 1 If it is so bound, jffgH •it has no right to exist at all. The Par.' I liamOnt which mustered tho assembly cot*, %'JiM tained few, if any, members of tho Church , ,/! of England, and "had, moreover, in abolisli-.;|gH|| ing Episcopacy ' declared positively againsfc tho continuance of the Church of England. r The members of the assembly were chosen iJ goner,illy for- their Presbyterian views, and fMI tho Anglican clergy took no part in the I'jlM deliberations of the body. The assembly itself, animated by tho same tamper as the ' Vjl Long Parliament which created it, and little ' more than the mouthpiece of Parliament. succeeded. in a very 'thorough manner in '-yy altering or blotting out in detail the dis- #$3 tinctivo 'doctrines and practices of tho es- .!; $ iablisfced Church. So far, then, as Mr. /•-> Dickson relies upcr. the findings of the l.;: 3 Westminster Assembly in refutation of r l ' ;'! Bishop'. Cross ley's plea in support of the ! ' k custom of praying for tho dead, tho argu. . : , ment is absolutely unfounded, and there- ■ 1 .fore ol! no value. As for John Calvin, I , :f have yet to learn that ho is an authority in I matters pertaining to tho Church of Jhg. ,/;;%! land. ' : . ''4 W. E. Barnard. ' " To Aroha, June 16, 1912. . .wj

Sir, —Mi'. J. Dickson, of the Clause, Pic- . •,j3 ton, in last Friday's issue, seems to eon*:i r, :j flidor that Anglicans should bo bound by thff . ' decisions of ike Westminster Assembly be- ■ cause it was called together by the Long Parliament. Docs he mean 'by this that, the •ir . State can arrogate to itself tho right to control questions concerning the faith and. r/: doctrine of the Church of England? ThisV '' i was-, certainly not so in the time of Elizaboth, : when the following declaration was \ R ordered to be read in all churches:"WoV deny to claim any authority to oursolf to define, decide, or determine a-ny article or •* ' ■ point of the Christian, .faith and religion,' - or to change any ceremony of the Churib;': from tho form before received and observed % by: the Oatholio «nd Apostolic C'nuroh/' . iiiao the Church of England (in England) i is more or less a department of State-ij perhaps inevitable in tho light of past. his- . ~; tory, so far at .'east as the control of benefices, tho appointment of bishops, etc., ar» concerned. But the State has enacted la%vsso 1 ' diametrically opposed-, to the teaching# <?f the Church and Christianity,e.g.. legalis- . ing marriage .with a .deceased wife's sister, ■ f and the marriage of divorced persons—thai the Church ana churchmen are absolutely justified in resisting or ignoring them. In _ any case, I• am not aware that the West- ;; minster Assembly passed any on mi on the l j question of prayers for the dead. Again, J Mr. Dickson seems to think prayers for tho . dead aro unbiblical, but does not say where -'i.V;,' they aro prohibited. It' was tha custom of tht» Church to pray for tho departed long ; S before the Bible, -as such, ever existed. I am, of course, referring to the Church founded by Christ Himself-—not the Church : . founded by John Knox, or any other j Church of human origin which lias its 'root in the Bible minunderstocd. As the Church gave the world the Biblewhich has been mis- ' translated so many times to suit arid assimiIlate Protestant prejudice that it would be interesting to learn which particular traAslation Protestants claim as the Word of ! , Godsurely the: Church, and not the 'individual, must be the proper interpreter of Holy. Scripture. Mr.; Dickson, quotes Chil)ingworth r s saying, "The \ Bible, I say, the.ffe* Bible only is the religion of Protestants." ,'; No doubt. But the Bible is a difficult book. Interpreted Without ecclesiastical comment, it presents numerous moral, intellectual, and spiritual difficulties. . Almost any heresy V"r,?rt can be proved to bo right ; by' ; the Bibleeven right "cut be proved to bo wrong— and eases occur which shock our sense of .■ morals, and . which apparently had the ap-lS|f| proval of God. Far be it from me to 'say S-fc one word against the Bible. ; It is un-; doubtedly God's revelation to man; ' but; can only be read by churchmen in the light of. the creeds and church dotrinp. Again, if we have to look to the Bible for authority ' for everything wo say or do we shall eoonf ; v* get into a moss. Where, for instance,. is 1 :K " thero any biblical authority for the giving of the ring in marriage, for the playing :or an organ at Divine ' service, or for -'.a, disr tinctivo. dress for a clergyman or a minister? l ', — gown or a " dog collar" to wit? And why is it that Protestants persistently ignore the injunction of St. Paul to hi» : friends at Phillippi that "at 'tho name of Jesus every knee shall bow;" end regard the reverential obeisance observed •by con- % : :';,' sistent ', churchmen 1 , ; as ritualistic" or "Romish?" In tho ( controversy ilhat has been . going' on ■ 110 valid . reason • lias ; . beon : ; : j ; ' ? adduced up to the present why the dead (if J they are dead : at all, : which \we don't j; ; s know) should not bo prayed for. : On the '; H ' other hand,' it is doubtless a comfort Vt'ov;"^'; 1 ; many people to pray for those whom they $jg| loved when on. earth, and have departed to the great unknown. If, then, it can :bo I'" done in-priveite, why should it not txvdone;: in-public? It is an ancient custom it the sanction of the Church; it is not for- ' | bidden in , the . Word of God; and it is quite consistent ' with '■ the : axioa:, • of Via-' (}■«■ oentiui Lirinensis^— Quod 1 semper, : quodj)K?' iibiquo, quod :ab omnibus traditurti est,"'| i.e., we are .to believe, whatever tradition ■ W has boon at all times, in all placos, and by all -persons * handed • down. ' fc _this ; con-r|!f|j; nection, . as in > many •' others Christian obsor-jiig] vances, tho rule of the Council of 'Nice may ,j well be applied, "Let ancient customs_.pre«;>|i; | vail till" reason plainly reb.uires'' the con-' trary." ' , JOHN W. Wabkbjt. ,; ; | ' iJamilton,: June 16. -* '■ * *j.y • .. v..-'.--