I cannot contain my passions; and, roused to the extreme height of devotedness, I respectfully present my petition to your Majesty, excessively trembling, and filled with fear."

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.

SIR Herbert Jenner's decision in the Court of Arches, in the case of the Rev. J. Breeks versus Widow Woolfrey, has caused an immense ecclesiastical commotion in the kingdom; and indeed it is a subject of the deepest interest to all persons, considering the present position of the papal enemy. It is a victory of high importance to the popish priests and the Puseyites; and is considered by them a rapid advance for their designs, far beyond what they could have anticipated six months ago. It is now decided that the Church of England does not prohibit prayers for the dead. The learned Judge, who seems to have considered the subject very minutely, came to this conclusion, that the denial of purgatory is not of necessity a denial of prayers for the dead. "It appears to me," said Sir H. Jenner, that the point upon which the whole question turns, is, whether praying for the dead is so necessarily connected with the Romish doctrine of purgatory, as to form a part of it? If that fact could be made out, there would be an end of the case." The learned Judge meant to say,

that " as the twenty-second article of the Church of England pronounced concerning the Romish doctrine of purgatory, that it is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God;' if therefore praying for the dead is necessarily connected with purgatory, it would be quite clear that prayers for the dead are prohibited by the Church of England. Most of us have been so accustomed to hear the VOL. II.

two united, as to consider them inseparable; but the students of Church history know very well that prayers for the dead preceded the doctrine of purgatory by a long interval of time; and indeed it is obvious that prayers for the dead may be offered up without believing in purgatory, or even ever having heard of that figment. We may pray for the dead in a general ignorance of their state, with a vague hope of rendering them some undefined assistance, and of furthering their eternal interests in that unseen and unknown world, to which they have carried away with them our dearest affections, and our tenderest regrets. And that prayers for the dead are separable from purgatory, is apparent by the fact, that the authors of Edward VI.'s first liturgy retained the practice, but in such a manner as to avoid all mention of the popish limbo; which elicited from Calvin the following remark, addressed by him to the Protector of England. 'I hear that in the celebration of the supper there is repeated a prayer for the departed; and I well know that this cannot be construed into an approbation of their papistical purgatory.' The Book of Homilies has, indeed, some sentences against the practice. In the homily on Prayer we find,‘Let us not, therefore, dream either of purgatory or of prayer for the souls of the dead.' And again, Let these, and such other places, be sufficient to take away the gross error of purgatory out of our heads; neither let us dream any more that the souls of the dead are any thing at all holpen by our prayers. But the homilies are not of sufficient authority to decide a disputed point in Anglican theology; the Articles indeed refer to them as 'containing godly and holy doctrine,' but it is to the Articles that legal reference must be made for the authentic definition of Protestant opinions, as entertained by the Church of England. As therefore the Articles do not forbid prayers to the dead, it is

N

the idea that the resolutions of your ancestors would be carried into effect by the hand of your Majesty; but your present indulgence and want of prompt decision will pamper this sect, and cause them to increase more and

more.

"I have lately heard that your Majesty has ordered the host of priests to bring with respect the bone of Fuh from Fung-tseang into the imperial palace for inspection, ordering all temples to contribute and supply it with sacrifices. Now, though I am the most stupid of men, yet I know that your Majesty is not deceived by Fuh, but have performed this service in order to pray for prosperity. But truly, to appoint in your capital, and before your officers, these false and imposing spectacles, these instruments of folly, in order to render the harvest abundant, the people happy, and their hearts obedient, -how could one possessing sacred intelligence act thus, and believe such things as these? The blind and stupid people are easily deceived, and slowly understand; but when we see your Majesty thus, we must certainly conclude that your whole mind is given up to the service of Fuh. All will say, 'If the Emperor, so exalted and intelligent, still with his whole heart believes in Fuh, who are we people, that we should not much more give up our very lives?' They will singe their crowns and burn their fingers, and by tens and hundreds go to give away their clothes, and distribute their money to the priests from morning to evening, imitating one another, till I fear both young and old will presently run away, utterly neglecting their business and employments. If you do not instantly prohibit these things, but increase their temples still more, then there will be soon persons amputating their limbs, and mincing their bodies for offerings to Fuh; ruining our morals, and exciting the ridicule of surrounding nations. This will not be a trifling matter. Now, Fuh was

originally a foreigner, speaking a language different from that of China, wearing clothes of a different pattern, his mouth not uttering the rules of ancient kings, his person not submitting to their laws, ignorant of the duties of princes and people, and the affections of parents and children: now, suppose he were at present still alive, and had received the orders of his country to come and wait upon your Majesty, your Majesty would only allow him an audience in the Schen-ching hall, give him a change of raiment, and see him safely conducted to the borders of your kingdom, but by no means suffer him to convert your people. Now that his body is long since dead, and his bones are rotten, how unsuitable is it to bring this remnant of unpropitious filth into the imperial palace! Confucius said,Respect the gods, and keep them at a distance.' The ancient princes, when they went to console the neighbouring princes, first ordered a necromancer to pronounce spells, and with the plant Taon-le to drive away calamities; but now, without any cause, you have taken a putrid filthy thing, and have come yourself to inspect it without any necromancer preceding, or without using the Taonle.

The host of ministers have not spoken of the impropriety of it, nor have the imperial examiners reported the error. I am really and truly ashamed of it. I entreat that this bone may be delivered to some officer, to throw it into fire or water, and for ever to exterminate its essence, in order to remove the doubts of the empire, to counteract the temptations of former dynasties, and cause the people to know that the example of our great sage infinitely exceeds those of common useless things.

"If Fuh is indeed a spirit, and can make men miserable, whatever calamities he is able to inflict, let him heap them on my person. Heaven is my witness I will not retract or complain.

I cannot contain my passions; and, roused to the extreme height of devotedness, I respectfully present my petition to your Majesty, excessively trembling, and filled with fear."

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.

SIR Herbert Jenner's decision in the Court of Arches, in the case of the Rev. J. Breeks versus Widow Woolfrey, has caused an immense ecclesiastical commotion in the kingdom; and indeed it is a subject of the deepest interest to all persons, considering the present position of the papal enemy. It is a victory of high importance to the popish priests and the Puseyites; and is considered by them a rapid advance for their designs, far beyond what they could have anticipated six months ago. It is now decided that the Church of England does not prohibit prayers for the dead. The learned Judge, who seems to have considered the subject very nutely, came to this conclusion, that the denial of purgatory is not of necessity a denial of prayers for the dead. "It appears to me," said Sir H. Jenner, that the point upon which the whole question turns, is, whether praying for the dead is so necessarily connected with the Romish doctrine of purgatory, as to form a part of it? If that fact could be made out, there would be an end of the case."

mi

The learned Judge meant to say, that "as the twenty-second article of the Church of England pronounced concerning 'the Romish doctrine of purgatory, that it is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God;' if therefore praying for the dead is necessarily connected with purgatory, it would be quite clear that prayers for the dead are prohibited by the Church of England. Most of us have been so accustomed to hear the

VOL. II.

two united, as to consider them inseparable; but the students of Church history know very well that prayers for the dead preceded the doctrine of purgatory by a long interval of time; and indeed it is obvious that prayers for the dead may be offered up without believing in purgatory, or even ever having heard of that figment. We may pray for the dead in a general ignorance of their state, with a vague hope of rendering them some undefined assistance, and of furthering their eternal interests in that unseen and unknown world, to which they have carried away with them our dearest affections, and our tenderest regrets. And that prayers for the dead are separable from purgatory, is apparent by the fact, that the authors of Edward VI.'s first liturgy retained the practice, but in such a manner as to avoid all mention of the popish limbo; which elicited from Calvin the following remark, addressed by him to the Protector of England. I hear that in the celebration of the supper there is repeated a prayer for the departed; and I well know that this cannot be construed into an approbation of their papistical purgatory." The Book of Homilies has, indeed, some sentences against the practice. In the homily on Prayer we find, Let us not, therefore, dream either of purgatory or of prayer for the souls of the dead.' And again, Let these, and such other places, be sufficient to take away the gross error of purgatory out of our heads; neither let us dream any more that the souls of the dead are any thing at all holpen by our prayers. But the homilies are not of sufficient authority to decide a disputed point in Anglican theology; the Articles indeed refer to them as 'containing godly and holy doctrine,' but it is to the Articles that legal reference must be made for the authentic definition of Protestant opinions, as entertained by the Church of England. As therefore the Articles do not forbid prayers to the dead, it is

N

6

6

held that the practice is not forbidden by the Established Church."

It would seem then that the Church of England is left in that predicament in which Henry VIII. placed it, when in drawing up his "Erudition of a Christian Man," he thus, in ambiguous terms, explained his ideas. of " purgatory," for under that title he dictated to his loving people the following rule of faith. "Forasmuch as due order of character requireth, and the Book of Maccabees, and divers ancient doctors plainly shew, that it is a very good and charitable deed to pray for souls departed, and forasmuch also as such usage hath continued in the church for many years, even from the beginning, we will that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach our people, committed by us unto their spiritual charge, that no man ought to be grieved with the continuance of the same."

Some men, however, are 66 grieved with the continuance of the same," and especially the Christian Observer, which thus expresses its grief: "The decision of Sir H. Jenner, in the matter of the Carisbrooke superstitious inscription, is beginning to work its baneful effects. We do not mean that the Papists exult, and that the Oxford-Tract sect exult with them, or that the Protestant Dissenters taunt us, and that the friends of the Anglican reformation are deeply afflicted at the disgrace brought upon our church and our common Christianity (whose?) by that ill-judged and lamentable decision, though all this be true;—but we refer to the practical effect, as exemplified in some recent proceedings in the Rolls' Court, in which the decision of Sir H. Jenner is urged in proof, that property devoted to purchase prayers for the dead is not dedicated to a superstitious use. We confess that if Sir H. Jenner is right, we see no honest way of avoiding this conclusion: and hence immense masses of property held by cathedrals, colleges, parishes, municipal

corporations, endowed schools, public companies, and private individuals, bequeathed or otherwise devoted to praying for the souls of the departed, are fraudulently retained, and ought to be restored to chaunting priests, and others, who will duly exercise the appointed trusts. It is gravely maintained that Ora pro anima' or 'animabus" is not accounted by the Church of England a superstitious condition annexed to property. If so, lands and funds of the value of millions of money ought either to be restored to the popish owners, or conferred on Mr. Newman, Dr. Pusey, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Keble, and others, who may think it right and charitable to perform the condition." (Feb. No. 14, p. 124).

Here is news for the Church of Rome! Why, the Conclave will shout for joy when they receive the glad tidings; for never since the accession of Mary to the throne of England has such a splendid prospect of a golden age opened upon the eyes of his Holiness. Depend upon it, the popish priests are on the look-out, and they will ere long pounce down on their lawful" prey, unless some act of parliament shall interfere to keep them out of their old possessions. Imagination cannot grasp all the extraordinary consequences that may result from Sir H. Jenner's decision. Not only may all the joint swarm of papal locusts," white, black, and grey, with all their trumpery," come down upon their ancient pastures; but, if in one single instance they should succeed in ousting an unlawful tenant of property originally granted for the benefit of the dead, we shall then, as a necessary consequence, behold all the side-aisles of the cathedrals fitted up again with chaunting altars for the use of those priests who have no scruple in doing that "which the Church of England does not forbid," and then again will copes and candles,

crosses and pixes, relics and rosaries, and all the other innumerable trinkets

of the papal superstitions be restored in the national churches, according to the original intentions of the builders and founders of those ancient edifices.

Is all this visionary? Certainly not. The Christian Observer is correct in its vaticinations. The same line of of legal argument that ousted the Unitarians from the possession of Lady Hewley's property, will be applicable to the Protestant possessors of Popish chauntries; and if prayers for the dead are not forbidden by the Church of England, then must attention be paid to the will of the original donors of property left for the express purpose of benefiting the souls of the departed.

The Roman Catholics, who openly profess their exuberant joy at this remarkable turn of affairs in their favour, have published some pamphlets on the subject of Widow Woolfrey's epitaph; and from one entitled "The Scarlet Fathers - the Church and the Widow (London, Southgate)," we make the following extract: "At All Souls' College, not many years ago, a Catholic priest was employed to say mass for the founders, to enable them to receive their money under their will. Let any person in authority connected with All Souls' College, deny the above assertion, and the proof is ready to be adduced," (page 24).

This most extraordinary statement certainly merits our attention in the present juncture. Is it true? it is boldly asserted; and the writer, by his italics, which we have copied, evidently reckons with confidence on the proofs of his assertion, of which he speaks as if they were within his reach. Perhaps the writer is quainted with the priest who was paid by the college to say the masses, perhaps the writer is that priest himself; at any rate he seems to know well what he is saying; and we trust that we shall either hear the statement denied and disproved, or else acknow

ac

ledged by the parties to whom the appeal is made. We were prepared for many wonders to be revealed in the Establishment; but that a Protestant college should secretly engage Popish priests to say masses for the souls of the founders of their college, was certainly a wonder beyond common capacities of belief, neither will it be believed till confirmed by better authority.

One thing, however, should be kept in mind, that if the rulers of All Souls' College should indeed have employed the Popish priests to sing masses for the souls of the founders, they probably resorted to such an expedient, not for any gratification of their own, but for legal security; and must have been in possession of some lawyer's opinion, advising them that such a step was expedient, from which we may judge of the fickle tenure of Popish foundations held by Protestant occupants.

In the meanwhile, what say the Oxford Tractators? The triumph of superstition cannot be otherwise than most agreeable to them; and the British Magazine is already giving notes of preparation for the great things to be done, now that a door has been opened for their party into Hades through the Court of Arches.

Thus writes one of their favoured correspondents in the February number,

66

Prayers for the dead are not to be found in the formularies of the Church of England, the strictest adherence to which is both enjoined and practised by the objects of the Reviewer's attack [the writer alludes to an able article in the Church of England Quarterly on the Oxford Tract party], still I may be permitted to say, that for my own part, I speak my own sentiments, no one else is answerable for them. regret such prayers have been discontinued (be it recollected they are no where forbidden) in our present liturgy."

I

Churchmen who regret the discontinuance of prayers for the dead, and