CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Waikato Times, Volume 108, Issue 18168, 5 November 1930, Page 7

CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —While Dean Barnett is to he congratulated on his courage in tackling doctrinal matters fought shy of by most of our so-called church leaders, it seems inevitable that some of his views and assertions will toe strongly opposed. He believes that prayers for the dead were deleted from the First Prayer Book, not because the mind of the Church of English wishec it but because of tremendous pressure from Europe. This is purely an opinion supported by very few facts. History reveals far more evidence thal the''pruning of the First Prayer Boot was only another step in purging the Book of everything savouring of Romish doctrine. Archbishop Cranmei ' was far too independent and strongminded a churchman to be dictated tc by the Lutherans and other peformec church of Europe. Personally I believe far more pressure was broughi to bear on th'e revisers 'to retain Romish services. The Dean forgets thal every parish church in England at that time was Roman with Romar priests and Roman ritual. Nobodj who has read the several biographers of Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley would dare suggest that they removed prayers for the dead because of outside pressure. They removed those prayers, or the contrary, because of inside pressure to have them retained. Th< Dean says we will be agreed that the church is more likely to express hei faith than a cosmopolitan Parliament He forgets that Parliament in 1926 had such learned and devout churchmen as Lord Brentford and Sir 'Thomas Insldp to guide it in its decision. If the “ mind ” of the church favours • invocation of the saints adoration and prayers for 'the dead why has not a majority of the House -of Bishops approved the principle ol these things? Fearing disestablish"ment, the church will not openly defj Parliament but its prelates -may advis< the lay body on these matters as Dear Barnett has done. Apart from a handful of clergy of Bishop per suasion none of them have done so Why? The only -answer can be because such would not be the mind o the church. As for the invocation o saints, I hope the day will never come when Anglicans pray for a collector of problematical saints invented by thi Church of Rome and whose existence is extremely hazy. St. Martin, St Britius, St. Hugh; St. Basil, St. Catherine, St. Cecillia and the rest ac libitum mean nothing to the tru< Christian, who would have to take ar advanced course in theology if he were to memorise the meagre details available concerning their lives and works, Since, as the Dean admits, we car dogmatise neither that they can help us nor cannot help u-s why worry about them at all? We might.just as well pray to (say) all the Chinese coolies who have died "since 1900 or 1600 (it doesn’t matter much) on the same assumption. I agree with the Dean that the Anglicans are sadly ir need of sound leadership but sounc arguments and assurances are more important still. —I am, etc., GREGORY. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Your publication of to-day contains an epitome of a sermon preached at the Cathedral by the Very Rev. Dean Barnett, ostensibly to gain countenance for prayers for the dead, the invocation of the saints and the adoration of the Virgin Mary. This sermon was preached to Anglicans, but its publication gives to it a wider audience, and thereby brings it before the tribunal of public criticism. Much has been written and said of late about the Prayer Book and its authority in matters of doctrine and practice for the Church of England, and there is grave danger of forgetting that the Prayer Book, or any prayer book is not inspired. The word of God alone, upon which it is based, is the supreme authority, it all doctrine, including prayer for the dead, must be tested. There' is no higher court. Taking the' Bible as our standard of appeal, I would like to point out that there is no single }ine given which exhorts us to pray for the dead, or “call up the dead” as the Dean expresses it. There is only one case in the Record which instances a human attempt to call up the dead, and that was the transgression of King Saul when he tried by the witch of Endor to call up the prophet Samuel. For this he lost his kingdom. Can the Dean supply us with a passage which definitely or by implication, warrants prayer for or to" the dead? There is a striking passage in Rev. 22 which states that John, on Patmos, fell down to worship' before the* feet of the angel which showed these things. But the angel said “ See thou do it not.” It would be interesting do read the scriptural authority for invoking the saints. Neither Paul nor Peter left word that they were to be prayed to, or would render help, after their decease. When Paul wrote that he had “ finished the faith,” and that “ a crown of righteousness ” was laid up for him to' be given on “that day," he implied rest until the resurrection and reward. And why exalt the mother of Jesus to a place never assigned to her by our Lord. I believe He loved and cherished His mother as no other ever did, but He never exalted his mother above other women. He declared that every one who did the will of God was His mother, sister or brother; and by these .words seems to have anticipated and guarded against this very contingency of the adoration of the Virgin. Is it not 'sufficient for poor erring creatures that we have an “ Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous one,” and by Him we all can come “ boldly to the throne of grace,” and find help for every time of need. We need no other intercessors in heaven. There is yet another reason why prayers for the dead are useless, and it is that the departed, the saints and Mary are dead, and will be until the Resurrection when “many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall arise, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”—Dan. 12. The quotation from ’the story of the thief on the cross cou'd quite as legitimately be rendered: “I say unto thee to-day,” as “I say unto thee, today,” etc. In the original uncial Greek j

there were no punctuation marks, and the first is more consistent than the latter. I am afraid these innovations into the once-beloved Protestant Church of England come under the heading of “ Romish practices,” which the Reformation relegated to the narrow confines of a church that had, do'ctrinally, run to seed. —I am, etc., JOSIAII SALISBURY. Boundary Road, Claudelands, November 4, 1930.