ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Wellington Independent, Volume I, Issue 45, 7 January 1846, Page 1

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Tj the Editor, &c.

• c iR, —In your paper of Wednesday last, I observe that my name is connected more than once with the funeraKf the lateH. J. L. M'Leod, Esq., and whiie I am certainly obliged to yon and the ether gentlemen who introduced my name for the complimentary manner in which this is done, I nevertheless (ear that the notices in your paper will convey to most of your readers an erroneous impression of the position I occupied on that occasion, and the sentiments I hold on the burial of the dead. 1 should scarcely however have troubled you on that account alone, but I perceive a very great amount of misconception seems to exist on this subject, in this locality, and from the excitement caused by Mr. M'Leod's funeral, I deem it a favourable opportunity to call the attention of your readers generally, and my own countrymen especially, to what many of them, I am sorry to observe, seem to be forgetting; the distinctive principles held respectively by the Ep scopalian and Presbyterian Churches on the burial of the dead, and the different practise that has consequently been followed in England and Scotland. In the Episcopalian Church the burial of the dead, is evidently regarded as a religious ordinance, and the performance of it, like the dispensing of the sacraments, an essential part of clerical or ministerial duty. The reading of the burial service is obviously intended, not simply for the edification of the living, but also* if not chiefly, as a religious priv.lege, or honour to the dead. This being the principle adopted by the Episcopalian Church, she must nectssarily be exclusive in hrr practice- Her ritual is prepared simply for her own members. Wherever the Episcopalian Church is fully organised, she provides consecrated ground, a clergyman, and a burial service for the dead. To be interred in this consecrated ground, and to hive this burial service read over the corpse at the grave by the clergyman, is to receive the privilege of " Christian burial " But this is a privilege to which all are not to be admit eJ; In the " Order for the burial of the dead" it is s-iid that "the Office ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptised. or excommunic*ted, or have laid violent hands upon themstlves." These are not to be admitted to •Christian buria','tbey are all,we believe, to be sent to the " potters field." The coroner's inquests report few suicides, they are mostly deaths by insanity. The actually excommunicated are not numerous ; but according to the canons of the English Church, whosoever shall separate from the communion of saints in the Church of England, and shall continue as a new brotherhood, shall be excommunicated ipso facto, and according to the views htld by a large portion of the Episcopalian Ciiu eh, no baptism is to be legauled as vlid that has not been performed by a minister who was ordained by a bishop ; hence baptism performed by a minister belonging to any Presbyterian, Independent, Wesleyan, Baptut, or similar dissenting church is regarded by them as no baptism, and the person so baptized as no more entitled to "christian burial" than a Jew or a heathen. My objtct, however, is simply to str.te, not discuss the principles and practise of the Episcopalian Church on the burial of the dead. That members of that church should place a high value on " Christian burial," should long that their ashes may repose in consecrated ground, and that their remains be committed to the earth accompanied by the r oleum sounds of the burial service ; that they should have a kind of instinctive horror at being treated like unbaptized heathens, and receiving only what they regard as the bu idl of a dog; a'l this I c*n easily understand ; but, that Scottish Presbyterians who have been always taught to

regard consecrated ground, and an objectionable burial service, as superstitious rites; that any of them should be adopting thtge senrimenta and longm.? so after thi» of any similar service is to me at least matter of ..surprise. The Episcopalian Church in principle and practice is exclusive and sectarian in the burial of the dead, she makes' pro7ision oniv for those in b>r own communion. The Pre s b/teri*n Church on the other band both in sentiment and pracuce ig truly catholic, liberal, unsectarian. She notes no distinction of re igious communion j marks no difference of rank or character: in "the hou«fj appointed for all living." she claims no privilege apartments. The Presbyterian Church regards the burial of the dead not at all in the light of a RriigioHs Ordinance, but merely as a privilege common to humanity, and a duty that every man owes his feilow-man. Hence in Scotland the cemetries are equally open to all, but the Presbyterians employ a burial service to none-, there is no service at the grave. It is true, that it is a common, though not a universal practice, to have some religious exercise at the place where the company assemble, thi3 in rural districts at least is usually in tha way of asking a blessing and returning thanks for some refreshment provided for the company, and of late years since the temperance movement be?an, where no refreshment is provided, a portion of scripture is read, and that is followed by an appropriate extempore prayer. But where these exercises are performed, it i 3 simply for the edification of the living, not in the least as a privilege or an honour to the dead. It does not constitute ■' Christian burial," and it is no part of ministerial duty. If a minister is present, as a matter of common courtesy, he is generally requesied to conduct the exercise; if no m:ni,ter is present, which is often the case, it is conducted by an elder or any intelligent ch.ittian who may be deemed best quaftud. But it is asked, what objections have the Presbyterians to a burial service ? What is wrong in such a practice ? To this it msy be replied, that the fathers and founders of the Scottish Church acted out, more than perhaps any men in Europe, the great Protestant principle—" The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible is the supreme standard of faith and practice.'' They followed Calvin and the Church of Geneva no farther than thtse followed the Bible. In looking into the Bible, tbey found nothing under the Christian dispensation that related either to consecrated burial grounds or a burial service—they found the history of our Saviour's burial. He was buried as was the Jews to bury. He was anointed with the costly spices, wrapped in the linen clothes, and laid in the new tomb in Joseph's garden—but there was no burial service read over bim. They found an account of the burial of the proto-martyr Stephen. He was carried to his burial by devout men : they made great lamentation over him—but there was no burial service read at his grave. Will any one say that Stephen was "buried like a dog?'' At the time of the first Reformation in Scotland, the Reformers had seen the working of the Popish burial service, and saw it invariably associated in tbe minds of the people with purgatory and prayers for the dead, and hence saw every reason for its discontinuance. At the time cf the second Reformation, when tbe present subordinate standards of the Presbyterian Church were composed, when, for tbe purpose of compiling these formularies, tbe Commissioners from the Scottish Church met with the English Divines —the flower of the puritans for learning and piety—assembled, by an Ordinance of the English Parliament, in Henry Vll's. chapel a: Westminster, to remodel the standards of tbe English Church,—at this time they saw no reason to adopt a funeral service ; hence, in " the directory for the public worship of God, agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, examined and approved, A D. 1645, by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and ratified by Act of Parliament the same year," and which is still the recognized standard of the Presbyterian Church, there is the following chapter ou the " Buri.-l of the Dead"— •' When any person departtth this life, let tbe dead body, upon the day of buna', be decently attended from the house to the place appointed for public burial, and there immediately iutrred without any ceremony. " And because the cu'toms of kneeling down and praying by or towards the dead corps?, and other such usages in the place where it lies before it is carried to burial are superstitious, and for that, praying, reading, and singing both in going to, and at the grave, have been grossly abused, are no way beneficial to the dead, and have proved many ways huriful to the living ; therefore let all such things be laid aside. " Howbeit, we judge it very convenient that the Christian friends, who accompany the dead body to the place appointed lor public burial, do apply themselves to meditations and conferences suiiable to the occasion; and that the minister, as upon other occasions, so at this time, if he be present, may put them in remembrance of tbeir duty. *' That this shall not extend to deny any civil respects or deferencps at the burial, suitable to the rank and condition of the piitj deceased, while he was living."

(Concluded in page 3.)