BISHOP CROSSLEY AND PRAYERS FOR DEAD.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1455, 1 June 1912, Page 7

BISHOP CROSSLEY AND PRAYERS FOR DEAD.

Sir,—When we recently published '.'Shall Ritualism and Romanism Capture Jiew Zealand" we left out a chapter on purgatory and prayers for tlio ilead to make room for other errors thought more common, on the ground that all that sort of thing was an exploded superstition, ■..vhich aid not seriously touch Uio life of to-day in New Zealand. But the Bishop of Auckland's barefaced advocacy of prayers for the dead in their most objectionable form shows that we were too sanguine, and amply justifies the contention ot our recent work that Ritualism and ■Romanism are running in double harness. Dr. Crossley does' not disguise the fact that the chief object .aimed at by him in these sermons is just to propagate this doctrine which is so un-Protesfant. Like his Roman friends, ho finds no support for it in the word of God except in a fanciiful interpretation' of II Tim., 1, 18, which he does not press. No, wonder. Chrysostom says Onesiphorus was alive at the : time, and tradition, which is a great favourite with ]Dr. Crossley, tells us that ho . ivas afterwards made a bishoj), though not exactly like the Bishop of Auckland. ■Like the Romanists, he falls back on the un-Protestant principle, fruitful of njuch ■?rror, "there is no text to forbid yon to lo so," i.e., to' pray for the dead. Like jiis friends, he stresses Church authority, 3nd misrepresents it, The Dean of Arches, Sir H. Jenner Fust, in the- case known as Breeks v. Woolfrey, did not' decide that prayers for the dead were ■legal in the Church of England, but .while the Church discouraged pra3-ers for 'the dead, the action of the defendant would not subject him to severe prohibitory ecclesiastical censure in inscribing on the tombstone of Woolfrey a text in II 3lacc., U', 46. This is a text, from an uninspired book, which Professor Bale, of Duuedin, a good authority on the Creek, asserted when writing to me a few years ago on the subject, had nothing to do with prayers for the (lead. AVe .were then engaged in a controversy with a distinguished Roman advocate, who is now gone to his account, and will not be helped or hindered by the prayers of Dr. Crossley or myself. How ready the Ritualists are to embrace or anathematise ,the Dean of Arches and the Privy Council of England just as they think it suits their purpose. They never can, however, got over the fact that the prayers for the'dead found in the First Prayer Book of SEdward VI were all expunged in subsequent revision. According to tho burial service used by the Bishop himself, the Bouls of the righteous enter Paradise, .where they "are in joy and felicity." Could even a bishop improve on joy and 'feeility in Paradise by any prayers of his. like his friends, Dr. Crossley appeals to precedent. Dr Temple surreptiously and slyly introduced a prayor for tho dead in the burial service used by the chaplains of the South African troops. The Archbishop of Melbourne prayed for those lost in the Titanic disaster. Why may. not . another son of the Church show a little -eccentricity, and do the same. Like his friends land allies, he lays emphasis on tradition, find adds even to that. He asserts that for 1500 years before the Reformation tho .practice existed hy .which we pray for i feven "tho forgiveness oT sins" for tlio dead. This, with tlio doctrine held by all Ritualists that. Christ gave the Church Jiower to remit all kinds of sins (John 20E.')), opens the way for purgatory and all manner of abuses. It out-Herods l)r. Tusey, who argued in his day that- tho early Christians simply prayed for the (augmentation of '.the happiness of the righteous (an earnest remonstrance to the author of the Pope's Pastoral Letter and London, 1§36/;.p.-25);/ i rAftcr stj:l6 of an old fri'ck, lie trades on the''fdct . that the I .Reformation of tho sixteenth century !was' a development with the Reformers, Bnd conceals the fact that, like Luther, many of. them came to change their minds and to hold that prayers for the dead Jvere not to be tolerated even as a piece of sentiment which the Bishop of Auckland makes so much of. He omits to mention that Calvin quotes his opponents As saying that "for 1300 years the practice existed of praying for the dead," Calfrin going on to show the worthlessness of the statement, to _n.sk what authority there is for so praying in the Bible, and to point out tho absurdity of the practice rCalv. L., 111,. Inst. C.V.N., 10). In Chap. V Calvin relates the heathen origin of 'prayers for the dead. Will the com- • biittfo of the Layman League, which suspended; the.admirable'little New Zealand Churchman, to see how Dr. Crossley Bhaped his coui'so as 1 compared xvith his predecessor in office, now resume publication, and again enter the lists in defence bf their prccious blood-bought liberties? Dr. Crossley has amply justified our retent strictures on tho Ritualists of New Zealand.—l am, etc., JOHN DICKSON. The Manse, Picton.