PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.

SIR, I presume that every one competent, from acquaintance with ecclesiastical history, to form a judgment on the subject, will acknowledge the decision of Sir Herbert Jenner, on the case lately referred to the Court of Arches by the chancellor of the diocese of Winchester, to be correct, and correct on just grounds. When, however, we consider the present excusable incompetence of many of our clergy to explain, and the inability, or unwillingness, of most of our congregations to comprehend, the true intent and value of prayers offered for the dead, it must be granted that, with regard to that practice, our church is not yet freed from those circumstances which led her, during the progress of the Reformation, to discourage it. It may therefore still be, and perhaps it is, a thing inexpedient that inscriptions such as that complained of, should be set up, or remain in the burial grounds of our parish churches. But, Sir, what I wish to enquire is, whether the incumbent of Carisbrooke has not, in this case, brought upon himself the liability to such a scandal, if it be a scandal, by admitting a papist to burial according to the rites of the church of England? Or perhaps I should rather ask, whether the neglect of the canons and rubrics of the church, now rendered almost compulsory on the clergy by false public opinion, does not necessarily involve every clergyman in a liability to such misadventures as the present? If the deceased, Joseph Woolfrey, died a papist, did he not die under excommunication of the church of England? And if this be so, why then did a minister of the church of England use her office, appointed at the burial of the dead, over one dying excommunicate, contrary to the rubric? The way to have effectually prevented the inscription on the tomb, would have been simply to have obeyed the directions of our church, and declined to bury the corpse. Yet, if this had been done, every one must be aware what an outery would have been raised. It appears, then, to be very desirable that the clergy should know thoroughly on what ground they stand. The second canon of the synod of 1603 pronounces excommunicated, ipso facto, all impugners of the king's supremacy. The ninth and tenth canons pronounce the same of all authors and maintainers of schism in the church of England. The sixty-eighth canon, while directing that no

bishop. It will be, he supposes, an episcopal church without consecration, licence, or any kind of connexion with any bishop in any way or degree. Why has the writer omitted all notice of the Editor's question? "Is he prepared to say, that any building which he might choose to erect, and use for his own ministrations, either out of an episcopal see, or in the see of a bishop whose orthodoxy be denied, would be 'properly' called an episcopal church'?" The affectation of calling it a "silly strife about words to no profit," is a mere subterfuge. Does he mean to say that the proposed "episcopal church" at Paris will have any other right to that name than Surrey Chapel had while in the hands of Rowland Hill, supposing (the Editor does not know the fact) that it was originally built for the sole use of that episcopallyordained clergyman? Surely the pretence of treating it as a silly strife about words must coneeal some very important reason for clinging with such tenacity to a word so obviously improper. Its real position would be much more correctly expressed by calling it "The episcopally-ordained-clergyman's church."

minister shall refuse or delay to bury any corpse that is brought to the church, or churchyard (convenient warning being given him thereof before), expressly excepts persons dying excommunicate. And the rubric, prefixed to our order for the burial of the dead, also directs that the office is not to be used for any that die excommunicate. Does, then, the letter of the canon constitute every offender against it an excommunicated person; or is it necessary that persons offending should have been pronounced excommunicate by the bishop of the diocese before they may be treated as such? If the letter of the canon is sufficient, then every papist, as an impugner of the sovereign's supremacy, and as a schismatic (for in England they are schismatics), is excommunicated by the church of England, in that he is a papist. And consequently, a minister of the church of England would not only be justified in refusing, but is bound to refuse, to use our burial service over his corpse. That, then, which I wish to know is, what would in effect be the result to a clergyman who should thus obey his ordination vow? Persecuted by the ignorant and profane he would be, of course; and even by serious persons among ultraprotestants, however inconsistently, he would be persecuted. But would this be the sum of his trial? Would he receive protection in his duty from the law of the land? If you will answer me this question, you will do good service to many of your readers, and particularly oblige your obedient servant, E. S.

THE BISHOP OF VERMONT'S WORK ON THE CHURCH OF ROME.

DEAR SIR,-Will you allow me to direct the attention of your readers to a work which has fallen into my hands within these few days, and which is, I believe, comparatively unknown in these countries.

a duodecimo volume of 406 pages, and is intitled, "The Church of Rome in her primitive purity, compared with the Church of Rome at the present day; being a candid examination of her claims to universal dominion; addressed, in the spirit of Christian kindness, to the Roman hierarchy. By John Henry Hopkins, D.D., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the diocese of Vermont. Burlington, 1837."

It appears to me to be one of the most valuable treatises on the Roman supremacy I have ever met with. For, while it is conducted with great research and ability, it possesses most pre-eminently those qualities of candour, meekness, and affection, which unhappily are so rarely to be found in the pages of the controversialist. It is, at once, a work from which our own clergy can learn how such an argument ought to be conducted, and a volume which can be placed in the hands of a Roman catholic without the slightest danger of wounding his feelings, either by its language or its spirit. And on the point it discusses (and it is, I apprehend, the foundation and essence of the whole controversy) the facts and reasoning are perfectly unanswerVOL. XV.-Feb. 1839.

2 c

able. It appears extremely desirable that the work should be republished in England, as such a book cannot be too soon made accessible to the clergy and to our divinity students.

Dear Sir, most truly yours, JOHN CLARKE CROSTHWAITE.

Trinity College, Dublin, Jan. 11th, 1839.

REPLY TO MR. PERCEVAL ON THE MEANING OF THE TERM "COMMON LAW."

SIR, Mr. Perceval's last letter reduces our controversy to two very simple points, on which it is only necessary for me to offer a very few remarks. Mr. Perceval commences his letter with some extracts from Sir Matthew Hale and Blackstone, intended to shew that "these eminent writers upon English law do not consider the term common law, in its strict and proper sense, applicable to the laws of the ecclesiastical courts; and hence, oddly enough, infers, "I hope it may appear from these that, in supposing the judges whom Mr. Goode has cited as affirming that the liability to church-rate is a common-law liability not to have used the term in its strict and proper sense, I am offering no disrespect to them." I would willingly have spared him the trouble of making these extracts; for all which is there contained is readily granted, and withal strengthens my position. My position is, that when the common-law judges judicially in their own courts pronounced church-rate to be a common-law liability, they used the term common law to denote (not a common law of some other court, but) that which was common law in the place where they were sitting, and the court in which they were giving judgment; and Mr. Perceval has kindly supplied me with extracts, shewing that those judges do not think that the term common law is, in its strict and proper sense, applicable to the laws of the ecclesiastical courts, which therefore supply an additional reason (if any were wanting) for supposing that when they did thus use the term "common law," they did not mean a law valid only in the ecclesiastical courts. Mr. Perceval has just taken for granted the very point which is denied— namely, that the judges referred in their decisions to "the laws of the ecclesiastical courts," and then very ingeniously says, I did them no disrespect in saying that they did not use the term common law in its strict and proper sense, for they do not themselves consider the term applicable in its strict and proper sense to the laws of the ecclesiastical

courts.

The other point is, a repetition of the reference to "the declaration of Chief Justice Abbott, that the Court of King's Bench will not, and of Lord Kenyon that it cannot, interfere by mandamus to compel a rate, the reason assigned in both cases being the same-namely, that it is a matter purely of ecclesiastical COGNIZANCE." In answer to this repetition of a former statement, I need merely refer to my last letter, where there is a full reply to it. The state of the case is

simply this. Parishioners are, as Lord Coke tells us, bound to repair their churches "per consuetudinem notoriam et approbatam,”-i. e., by common law, but by the act of circumspecte agatis, "the conusans" of such causes, as Lord Coke says, "is allowed to the ecclesiastical courts ;" and therefore, as long as the ecclesiastical courts retain the power of enforcing the obligation, so long, of course, the common-law judges may very justly say, and perhaps are bound to say, We cannot interfere because this is a matter purely of ecclesiastical cognizance. You have your remedy elsewhere, and therefore there is no need of a mandamus; and according to Lord Mansfield, as quoted in my last, the Court of King's Bench "will not interfere by granting a mandamus unless the party making the application has no other specific legal remedy."

This reply is, I suppose, from the order of the controversy, due from me; but if Mr. Perceval wishes to make a further answer I am quite willing that it should be so, and, provided no new matter is introduced, shall not feel it necessary to offer any reply; and, with my best compliments to him, am, Sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM GOODE.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND QUARTERLY REVIEW AND TRACTS FOR THE TIMES,

SIR, The last number of the "Church of England Quarterly Review" contains a most violent attack on the "Tracts for the Times," and other publications embodying the same principles, and expressing the same sentiments. As this attack has been widely circulated, either wholly or in part, through the means of other portions of the press, I venture, as a layman, ardently and devotedly attached to the views which the works in question have so extensively, and by the blessing of Providence so successfully, diffused, to expose a few of the grievous misconceptions and unblushing misrepresentations with which the article in the review everywhere abounds. I shall not dwell upon the various quotations from the venerable fathers of the church Catholic, because they open so vast, I may almost say so interminable, a field of discussion, that I might thus occupy the whole of your magazine for many successive months; with reference, however, to that portion of the diatribe, allow me to refer its writer to Mr. Newman's preface to the new translation of St. Cyril's lectures, the which had the reviewer chosen to study before he committed his pseudo-criticism to paper he might have avoided exposing himself on that head. As to Dr. Shuttleworth's recently published volume, I shall content myself with inviting your attention to the notice at the end of the "British Critic" for last October; while with reference to Mr. Holden's difficulties, on the subject of the canon of Vincentius Lirinensis, (the "ubique, semper, et ab omnibus,") and the imputations that the publications which I am humbly defending exalt tradition above, or even place it on a level with, the holy scriptures, I would recommend both writer and reviewer to read Mr. Newman's noble and unanswerable work on "Romanism and popular Protestantism," any allusion to which I

have been unable to find in the pages of this notable article,-an omission more conspicuously distinguished for its craft than its candour, -but let that pass. And now I will proceed to specify and answer some of the objections and cavils in detail, in order that I may put your readers in possession of the grounds, if grounds I may venture to call them, occupied by this Church-of England Reviewer. "Nay, is not the mummery of abandoning the reading desk, of kneeling on the steps of the altar, and of affected and Pharisaic individuals wearing the cross, sure indications of what will follow? Will not trine baptism, total immersion, and unction, be advocated on the same principles?" What ponderous trifling! In what part of our liturgy occurs the word "reading-desk?" The order for morning and evening prayer directs that the "morning and evening prayer shall be used in the accustomed place of the church, chapel, or chancel, except it shall be otherwise determined by the ordinary of the place." Now at the chapel at Littlemoor, (the chapel of ease to St. Mary the Virgin,) there could be of course no "accustomed place," when it (the chapel) was erected; it is therefore plain that, at the period of its erection, the priest had a clear right, unless the ordinary interfered, to use morning and evening prayer in any part of the sacred edifice he might select. In cathedrals, and college-chapels, prayers are used agreeably to custom, whatever that custom may be; and however averse the ultraprotestant spirit of the reviewer may be from the practice of kneeling on the steps outside the altar, I will venture, notwithstanding the uncourteous and uncharitable word "mummery," to remark, that a more reverential mode of praying, one more befitting the commissioned servant of the Most Highest, offering prayers and supplications on behalf of the people, cannot be observed or employed. The reviewer might, with equal justice, complain of the service for the holy communion being read within the rails of the altar; he does not see how far, in consistency, he must necessarily go. With reference to the wearing of the cross, it is admitted in another part of this strange medley, that it" was in use in the reign of Edward the Sixth ;" now if the writer had again referred to the above-mentioned "order," with which he cannot have the slightest acquaintance, (unless I must impute to him wilful misrepresentation instead of unpardonable ignorance,) he would have found that "such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this church of England, by the authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth." Fas est ab hoste doceri; we learn hence the danger of giving up any custom; its revival is almost certain to be stigmatized as a novelty, either intentionally or through lack of information. I have no doubt that the reverend gentleman who restored the part of the deacon's dress referred to, had good reason for subsequently discontinuing it. Most absurd and monstrous, however, is it to make the revival a ground of serious accusation, and to abuse as "mummery" what is in fact a strict compliance with the injunctions contained in the Book of Common Prayer of the church of England. But, pursues the reviewer, "Will not trine baptism, total immersion,