The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-12 00:00:00

LI,Se pra., erg for toe a; au it, the second
Prayer Book of Edward VI., were principally acceded to at
the instance of Calvin and Luther ; and, though this had been
made in some degree a matter of dispute and difference 01
opinion between different writers on the subject, still it
r:eerned to be the general opinion that it was at their instance
that these prayers were omitted ; but he (Sir H. Jenner)
had not been able to trace in these writers th, precise
grounds upon whi,•i: the omission w,:s ;
but there
was authority enough to show that at least the surrender
of this part of the alteration and revision of the first
Prayer Book, of the order then( in set forth, was not very
inconsistent with the opinion of the majority of persons so
employed, upon the ground that they were not inconsistent
with the doctrines of the Church of England. He had looked
into the Act by which the second Prayer Book was esta-
blished—the sth and 6th of Edward VI., c. 1., which was
also entitled 6. An Act. for Uniformity of Service and Ad-
ministration of the Sacrament throughout the Realm ;" and
the recital in that Act, which must be considered as tae
sense of the Legislature, was stated, that whereas there,
had been a very godly order set forth by the authority of
Parliament, agreeably to,the Word of God and the usage of
the Primitive Church, &c. (using the words in the previous
Act by which the Book of Common Prayer was esta-
blished, which included the prayers for the dead,
both in the Communion and Burial Service) ; yet
notwithstanding this, numbers of persons abstained
from coming to church, &c., and it then went on to
provide the means for compelling attendance at the parish
church to hear Divine Service, according to the order set
forth in the Book of Common Prayer. The fifth section
stated the grounds on which this alteration had been
made, and the recital introducing this enactment Was'
that whereas there had arisen, in the use and exer-
cise of the common service of the Church, divers doubts
as to the fashion and ministration of the same, rather
by the curiosity of the Minister, &c., than by sul
worthy cause, therefore, for the more plain direction
thereof, &c., it then proceeded with the enactment by
which the second Book of Prayer was substituted for the
first ; expressly declaring that the first order, which wr.,
declared to have been a godly order, agreeably to the W'or°
of God and the Primitive Church, was still considered to
deserve that character, and that the alteration had. bee°
made simply from doubt which had arisen, still 'affirming'
the Book of Prayer which was first set fortl-4, It Was,
true that the Act of Parliament was afterward repealed
by the Ist of Queen Mary, but that Act was again repealed
rt
in the Ist of Elizabeth, and the
.sth and 6th of Edward
was afterwards re-established as the law. Now, it seemed
that, up to this period of time, there were certainly pot
any express prohibitions of praying for the dead nor Ws'
there, as far as he was able to learn, any notion nrecessir
rily implying a belief in the doctrine of porgatory, though
in consequence of some persons being professors of the
Romish religion having taken an advantage of this
practice as an argument to support their doctrine of puny/
tory, it was thought proper and convenient that the forol,°,l
prayer should be altered, and that those prayers which eou`
by possibility be urged in support of the Roman Catholic
doctrine of purgatory should be omitted in the pub
service, it not being enjoined by any warrants of Scripture
that prayer should be used for the dead, but there being pO,
prohibition in any of the articles or canons of the Church'
The whole of the authorities seemed to go no further thau
this—the discouragement of the use of prayers for the dead,
and not the prohibition of them; and that no part of the
22d article was violated by the use of prayer for the deal,
and consequently no invitation to offer up prayers for the deg
couldbe considered asa violation of that article of the Church'
The ground on which the Church consented to the alters'
tion being made, and to the omission of those praYere;
was perhaps better stated by Mr. Palmer, is the Originek
Liturges, than in any other book he bad occasion to foo,
into. That that learned author entered into the grool5
d
of the disuse of those prayers for the dead, aid consider es
that the Church of England was no where found to esPre
a disapprobation of the continuance of the prayers for the
dead, although it had discouraged the use of the;-;
When the custom of praying for the dead began in ,""
Christian Church had never been ascertained. It beea°1e
4
a matter of some interest and importance to ascertainf
reasons for the omission of these prayers in the Liturgy d.
the English Church for the first time in the reign of
it
ward the 6th. Some persons, he said, might conceive at
was contrary to the revealed Word of God, but the gre
Divines of the Church of England had not take.,
1.,
this ground, and the Chrch of England had never forrniii
condemned prayer for the dead. The Learned ,fudge teat
other passages from the work, showing the opinio'a which,.
la'f.rned writer entertained of the reasons on which theßeo—A,
era omitted prayer for the dead, and he thought these groat,
satisfactorily shewed, where there was no express or forma..l
declaration, that these prayers were ne,t consistent with the
principles principles of the Church of England, or the Christian fast
He was, therefore, of opinion, thai. so far as the 22d article'
which had been principally relied on, was concerned, there
had been no violation of it, so as to call for the ponislunt
of the party by Ecclesiastical censure, for causing tu:
inscription which was recited in the articles to have bet'
placed on the tomb-stone. The 22d article appeared to h'°:.
to be confined simply to the reprobation of the doctriol
of purgatory, the invocation of saints, and the adoration. e:
images, but did not prohibit prayers for the dead, unless s 0
far as prayers for the dead are shown necessarily to 11'`01
a belief in the Romish doctrine of purgatory. F'es,
the authorities to which he had had means of a•ceeto
having trusted very little indeed to his own vies', of the
subject, he considered it was not shown to be yie!a;,;oo
of the 22d article of the Church to cause the inocriP-gn
complained of to be placed on the stone. But alth°llde
it might be that there was no violation of the 22d *rube
by which the doctrine of purgatory was pronounced "'here
repugnant to the Word of God. Yet it was said ten
was another article of the Church which bad "'re-
violated by the inscription in question, and
011
ference had accordiTagly been made to the be
article of the Church of England, though it he',' the
been specified in the article which had been given Lek of
cause, and which was to the effect that the 2d 13°°,03er
Homilies contained wholsome doctrines, as did the for;
Book of Homilies, set forth in the time of Edward Yes', therefore, they were adjudged to be read in ehurcb, of
by Ministers ; and No. 7, of the Homilies treated e,
prayer. It was contended that in that Homily the Pi
e,
tice tice of praying for the dead was considered to be an err0
00d
ous doctrine, and that as the Homilies were dire of
to be read in the churches, for the edification at
the people, the Church did necessarily infer ghat tot'
doctrine was an erroneous doctrine, and consequent'tnrch
it was forbidden, by necessary implication, by thu %of
of England. If that were so, it would seem extraerilvioeS
that in the face of the Homilies, so many lerArned, ", t'ne
should have fallen into the error of belitving tna. the,
Church of England had not prohibited, prayers rdesee
dead, but had merely discouraged them ; but he eon fl?
toive
it still more extraordinary, that, considering the ex"ploce
and violent discussions and disputes that had take"
ace°
with respect to these questions, there should not bav-i, bofr,
any express direction against that practice. If 1100
been the intention of the 'Church to have fur"-there
it altogether, surely it might have been expected that
eor
Would have been a direct express prohibition of thjoill
tinuance of that practice. The great object of the ' fiat
was to show the Romish doctrine of purgatory aesti
in conformity with the 22d article, a vain and pa"
invention not warranted by Scripture. There was I/ a the
of the Homily as it appeared to him which declared jaw
practice of praying for the dead was unlawful. It oe
lbois
did appear to be the intention of the composer off r 'be
Homilies, to discourrtge the practice of praying tbst
dead, but in what part of the Homilies was it deels-ree these
practice was unlawful. According to the composer niscouldr
Homilies, it was certain that the prayers of the tiviurftino 0'
have no effect in diminishing or alleviating the e0e.611 tbst
the dead, and, therefore, it was thought be Ater to ern,bloriti'
which was not enjoined by any Sexiptural au' t jar
rather than to run the risk of having it said that thlisau;
ti6ed purgatory, by those whose interest it was tot:glan,"
late, if they could, the doctrine, of the Church of Inoseu.'
to that of the Church wh.bse principles they 13°000
That I take to be the real, meaning of the conlp'osering theci
homily. But supposiwg it was otherwise, suPP°,ehe de'
composer of the holraly thought that prayers for ee'
were unlawful in themselves, it was not therefore t° the
cessarily infr-red that the Church of England followed ere
writer of those homilies in every part of the doetri° /wall°
Q.,*.ated. That appeared to be the opinion of BishoP,h-Livoif
and Bishop Burnett : therefore he could not hell' °f tbe_
that whatever was the intention of the framers
of the
Articles, that if had been the opinion of the frame?:
rayiati
Articles and of the Church that the practice of
di) t° the
for the dead was an illegal practice, and onPese authority
word of God, that they would, on the tbo
Scripture, have taken care to have expressly declarede.
sense of the propriety of the discontinunce of to tbon ao
i o
prayers, and have expressed themselves so as to ' not to
doubt whatever as to
what was their opinion in tesP „, the
that practice. As far as he had been able .'co
practice and the history of the Articles, and tY,e 01) , T this;
the Church on the subject, it had merely anaotrated
that they did not encourage, but rather d:rscrJuragFeP_in the
for the dead—that they had prohibited th.em :Atogeth roof;
public service ot. the Church, but not because thel_r th
dered them to be inconsistent with the, doctrinesriueiee
Church. So he collected from the books of theeulLent be
professors of Christianity. On eels part of the. 50 '44 00.
was also of opinion there hat; not been a violatice;orge4,
of the Articles of the Cfrarch. But it had also b
that the person by whom the tombstone had been itteas
and who had caused the inscription to be placed
.oppos b'
e upoo
a Roman Catholic, and therefore that it must he; to the
invitation to pray for the dead had necessarily referZurah of
doctrine of purgatory as sanctioned by the