THIS subject has come to the front again in our Church in connection with the Synod’s re-assertion of our position in regard to prayer at the grave. That there are some among us who do not agree with the Synod is evident from what took place at Winnipeg, as reported to the Synod. One also hears, now and again, such coarse and senseless criticisms as that Free Presbyterians bury their dead as if they were animals. This is the language of ignorance and reveals how great the ignorance is. It may be useless to remind such critics that our custom is strictly Biblical, and in accordance with the teaching and practice of the Reformed Churches of Scotland, France, Holland, etc. As far as Scotland is concerned it is only in comparatively recent times that Presbyterians, aping the customs of their Anglican brethren, departed from the practice of their fathers.* In this new departure there is much more involved than the mere departure from a Church practice. It is the actual adoption and recognition of the principle that burial is a religious ordinance which, though accepted by the Church of England and which, in accordance therewith, has its Burial Service, was never recognised by the Scottish Reformers nor by the Puritans of the Westminster Assembly period in their authoritative books. It is because we heartily agree with the Scottish Reformers and Puritans on this point, and for other reasons to be stated later, that we object to prayer at the grave.
*The same trend is seen in the increasing observance of holy-days among Scottish Presbyterians, such as Good Friday, Easter, Christmas, etc. The custom of throwing earth into the grave as the minister repeats the words of committal: “Earth to earth, ashes to ashes.” comes from the same source, and is prompted by the same spirit.
It is right to remind those who regard prayerless burial as heathen that it is the other way about, as anyone who has given study to this subject knows. The offering of prayer and many other customs at burial which crept into the Church as she departed from the early simplicity of the faith can be directly traced to pagan practices and superstitious ideas concerning the dead. We would also remind our critics that if a prayerless burial be what they term it, then the best and holiest of Scotland’s sainted dead went to their graves without a prayer being offered up at their burial, and we make bold to say neither the sainted dead nor those who gathered to pay their last respects to them were any the worse for the omission. But it may be asked of Presbyterians who hold different views from us on this matter—”Why this desire for prayer at the grave?” And the reply usually given is that those who may be gathered may be impressed with what they hear in the prayer. While we do not say that all prayers offered at burial are unscriptural, we must confess, from our experience, the less we hear of prayers offered at the grave the better. It is our custom to have a religious service in the house of mourning, where the Scripture is read, prayer offered, and, in most cases, a psalm sung. This ought to be sufficient for those who wish to have their minds directed to higher things amidst the desolating feelings caused by death.
We purpose in this article to show the attitude of the Reformed Church of Scotland to the custom of praying at the grave, now so widely recognised by Scottish Presbyterians, and also to point out that the custom is without the slightest Biblical authority or sanction.
The “First Book of Discipline” thus refers to the subject:—”For avoiding all inconvenience, we judge it best that neither singing nor reading be at the burial; for albeit things sung and read may admonish some of the living to prepare themselves for death, yet shall some superstitious and ignorant persons ever think that the works—singing or reading—of the living do and may profit the dead. And, therefore, we think most expedient that the dead be convoyed to the place of burial with some honest company of the Church, without either singing or reading; yea, without all kind of ceremony heretofore used, other than that the dead be committed to the grave with such gravity and sobriety as those that be present may seem to fear the judgments of God, and to hate sin, which is the cause of death.
“We are not ignorant that some require a sermon at the burial, or else some place of Scripture to be read, to put the living in mind that they are mortal, and that likewise they must die. But let those men understand that the sermons which we daily made serve for that use; which, if men despise, the preaching of the funeral sermons shall rather nurse superstition and a false opinion (as before said) than that they shall bring such persons to any godly consideration of their own estate.”
It is right to say, however, that in Dr Laing’s edition of the “First Book of Discipline,” as given in Knox’s “Works,” the following sentence is inserted:—”And yet, notwithstanding, we are not so precise, but that we are content that particular Kirks use them in that behalf, with the consent of the ministry of the same, as they will answer to God and Assembly of the Universal Kirk gathered within the realm.” This sentence, though not found in the 1621 edition or any other, has been accepted as genuine by Dr Lee and Dr Sprott, and it is probably owing to the limited liberty it gives of funeral sermons and reading of Scripture at burials (though, of course, it should not be forgotten that funeral sermons and prayer at the grave are not the same thing) that we find John Knox himself preaching a sermon at the burial of the Regent Moray, when he “moved three thousand to tears.” It is also recorded that Mr Henry Livingstone preached a funeral sermon on the day of Rev. Patrick Simson’s funeral. In the “Book of Common Order” (1564) commonly, though incorrectly, called Knox’s Liturgy, there is also a reference to the subject:—”The corpse is reverently brought to the grave, accompanied with the congregation, without any further ceremonies, which being buried, the minister, if he be present and required, goeth to the Church, if it be not far off, and maketh some comfortable exhortation to the people, touching death and the resurrection.” This prohibition is the same as that in the Book of Geneva (1556) on which the “Book of Common Order” was modelled except the words ‘if he [the minister] be present and required’ were absent from the former. The Book of Geneva was drawn up by John Knox, Fox, Gilby, Cole, and Whittingham. It was authorised by the General Assembly of 1562 to be used in the administration of the Sacraments and solemnisation of marriages and burial of the dead (Book of the Universal Kirk, p. 13). Between 1562 and 1564 it was modified and enlarged, and in its new form was printed in 1564 and authorised by the General Assembly. It was this directory that was known as Knox’s Liturgy, or more correctly, the “The Book of Common Order.” Prior to the drawing up of the Book of Geneva the French Reformed Church at the Synod of Orleance (1562) decreed “That all superstition may be avoided, ministers shall not use any prayers at the interment of the dead” (Quick’s Synodicon, I. 24).
Alexander Henderson, in his “Government and Order of the Church of Scotland,” first printed in 1641, says that burials are conducted “without singing or reading, which the superstitious do conceive to be profitable for the dead; without funeral sermons, which do beget superstition, and tend to flattery.” And in the “Platform of the Presbyterian Government and Worship of the Church of Scotland,” published by authority in 1644, it is stated that burial is to take place “without singing or reading, which the superstitious do conceive to be profitable for the dead; without funeral sermons, which beget superstition, and tend to flattery, make the Gospel to be preached with respect of persons, and are most pressed by such as do least regard sermons at other times; and without feasting, with affected shows of mourning, and any further pomp or ceremony, than civil differences and respects do require.”
It will thus be seen that as far as the Church of the first Reformation in Scotland is concerned it did not countenance prayers at the grave. When we come to the second Reformation period the prohibition is decidedly stronger, as we shall see. The Westminster “Directory for Public Worship” proceeds on almost the same lines as the First Book of Discipline. It says:—”Because the custom of kneeling down and praying by or towards the dead corpse, and other such usages, in the place where it lies before it be carried to burial are superstitious, and for that, praying, reading, singing, both in going to and at the grave, have been grossly abused, are no way beneficial to the dead, and have proved many ways hurtful to the living; therefore, let all such things be laid aside. Howbeit, we judge it very convenient that the Christian friends which accompany the dead body to the place appointed for public burial do apply themselves to meditations and conferences suitable to the occasion, and that the minister, as upon other occasions, so at this time, if he be present, may put them in remembrance of their duty.” This section most distinctly prohibits prayer at the grave, and not only prayer, but also singing and reading; it, however, allows an address to be given if the minister be present. The section occupied the attention of the Assembly for six days. Some of the Divines were for throwing it out altogether, holding with Cartwright that “the care of burying the dead does not belong more to the ministerial office than to the rest of the Church.”
*It may be necessary to explain what is meant by “funeral sermons,” and in doing so we cannot do better than quote Dr MacCrie’s definition: “A funeral sermon, in the strict and proper acceptance of the expression, is a sermon preached at a funeral, on the day of the funeral, or so connected with it as to form a part of the funeral service” (Miscellaneous Writings, p. 569). It is not to be confused with a sermon which a minister in the ordinary course of his ministry preaches, and in which he makes reference to the death of any individual.
The following fragmentary references in the “Minutes of the Westminster Assembly” may help the reader to realise the state of feeling among the Divines on the matter. “Session 333, 3rd December, Tuesday morning.—Report from the Committee about Burial.—Mr Marshall—Because the drawing up of these reasons doth concern ourselves as distinct from the dissenting brethren . . . therefore you would please to bestow an afternoon or two to accompany the Committee appointed, that the body of all the members being present, they may be read over, and only read over, and so passed. . . . Debate about the use of exhortations.—Mr Herle—A Directory; the end of it is for worship. Now, how this will fall under that, I know not. This will multiply our work. The Apostles did avoid all overburdening of themselves with serving tables. . . . It may prove a great snare. If exhortation, I know not why word and prayer shall not go together. Mr Whitakers—I do not see any force of argument why this Directory may not yet stand. . . . I think that a minister stands in a general relation to all his people, and every man, in all the providences of God, is to get his heart affected, . . . to be sensible of the death of his people is his duty. . . . Said, why a Directory for men when buried and not born; you know that, presently, after birth they are brought to baptism; something is done presently after. . . . Said, if a Directory for some, then for all. . . . I see not why not for all. . . . Dorcas . . . said the Apostles would not serve tables. . . . There is no transgression. . . . Rules in Scripture to take all occasions of doing good. . . . At death of friends, to be sensible. . . . Mr Marshall—But one only thing worthy of your consideration in this business: whether the minister, when he is present, may give a word of exhortation. To say he should be invited to be there as a minister, would press far that it is a ministerial work. Mr Hill—Two things may be hinted: (1) No necessity that the corpse be carried into the church; (2) The corpse be first buried. Session 334, 4th December, 1644, Wednesday morning—Debate about Burial.—Mr Palmer—I desire we should take away all superstition and declare against it, . . . but I do not think a dumb show becomes Christians. . . . If this ground be good, Christians ought not to meet but to meet as Christians. . . . Mr Whitakers—I can see no ground why exhortations are not of use. Session 337, 9th December, 1644, Monday morning—Debate of the Directory for Burial.—. . . Nevertheless, this doth not inhibit any minister at that time being present to give some seasonable word of exhortation. Mr Marshall offered a paper to express the affirmative part. Debate about something to be added to the negative.”
Lightfoot, in his “Journal,” says a proposal that something might be said at the time of interment, was passed over in silence, “and so the minister left something to his liberty. . . . Dr Temple moved again, Whether a minister, at putting the body in the ground, may not say—We commit the body to the ground, etc. And it was conceived by the Assembly that he might, and the words, without any ceremony more, do not tie him from this.”
It will be seen from the foregoing that the chief points on which the Divines held debate, as given in the “Minutes,” is whether an address should be given at the grave or not; finally, as we have already seen, the minister, if present, may give an address, but their prohibition of prayer, singing, and reading is unmistakable.
The “Directory for Public Worship” was accepted by the Church of Scotland on 3rd February, 1645, the Act of Assembly stating that the Church “Doth unanimously and without a contrary voice agree to and approve the following Directory in all the heads thereof, together with the Preface set before it; and doth require, decern, and ordain that, according to the plain tenor and meaning thereof and the intent of the Preface, it be carefully and uniformly observed and practised by all the ministers and others within this kingdom whom it may concern.” By the passing of the Act Recissory the Directory was deprived of its Parliamentary recognition, and at the Revolution, seeing the Act Recissory was still on the Statute Book, the Directory was not recognised by the State, but as late as 1705 the General Assembly passed a recommendation concerning the observation of the Directory for Worship, which is to the following effect:—”The General Assembly hereby seriously recommend to all ministers and others within this National Church the due observance of the Directory for the public worship of God, approved by the General Assembly held in the year 1645, Session 10.” Other Acts were passed in 1736 and 1856 calling attention to it on certain points. From the foregoing it will at once be recognised that the Directory has a very important place in the recognised laws of the Church of Scotland, and, by natural sequence, in the ecclesiastical statute books of all the branches of Presbyterianism that claim descent from that Church. Dr Mair asks the question: “In what sense then is the Directory to be taken, and in what sense is it unalterable?” And after quoting sections from the Directory he concludes: “It would therefore appear that so long as the Church ordains or allows nothing at variance with the view of the form of worship thus set forth, it does nothing at variance with the enactment which makes that form unalterable. This would appear to be the limit which is set by the constitution of the Church to changes in form of worship which is contained in the Directory” (Digest of Church Laws, pp. 16, 17). This deliverance of this able ecclesiastical lawyer, it may be said, does not touch the point in question. So far this is true, but the relation of the Church of Scotland to the Directory prior to the passing of recent legislation is quite definite. In the Free Church “Act and Declaration Anent the Publication of the Subordinate Standards and other Authoritative Documents of the Free Church of Scotland” of 1851 it is distinctly stated: “These documents [Confession of Faith, etc.] . . . have, ever since the era of the second Reformation, constituted the authorised and authoritative symbolic books of the Church of Scotland. And while the Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, are sanctioned as directories for catechising—the Directory for Public Worship, the Form of Church Government, and the Directory for Family Worship, are of the nature of regulations rather than tests—to be enforced by the Church like her other laws, but not to be imposed by subscription upon her ministers and elders” (Authorised Standards of the Free Church, pp. vii., viii.) These words are quite definite and indicate the relation in which the Free Church of 1851 stood to the Directory. As upholders of the Free Church position we are committed to maintain that relationship set forth in the Act of 1851. True, it may be said, that the injunctions of the Directory are more observed in the breach than the observance, even in churches which make high claims to orthodoxy, and we ourselves need not throw stones at others in this respect. One of the most extraordinary reasons for departing from this good custom we have ever come across is that recently given by a writer, who, coming to the conclusion that certain parts of the Directory concerning burial were not observed, goes on to say: “It remained, therefore, to follow the dictates of a wise expediency in this affair, and to impart as much neighbourliness and inoffensiveness as possible [i.e., by praying at the grave] . . . especially in these times of sorrow, when persons are so sensitive and impressionable.” If the Directory rule is a good one, and—which is more important—quite a scriptural one, then it is the duty of all who would guard jealously against the inroads of superstition to strengthen the things that remain and are ready to die, instead of giving them a last unkindly knock to put them out of existence simply because, in our estimation, other laws or rules are broken.
The same writer further says:—”In a recent deliverance of the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church on the subject of prayers at the grave, reference is made to the authority of the ‘Directory for Public Worship.’ When, however, the neglected duty of reading the standards of one’s own Church is taken in hand, it will be found that in this particular the Directory affords no particular guidance. The Directory, indeed, forbids as vigorously the praying, reading, singing at deaths and funerals, which all of us have taken part in from time immemorial.” Certainly it is high time to take in hand the neglected duty of reading the Directory, when such an interpretation is put on the section on Burial. Here are its words: “Because the custom of kneeling down and praying by or towards the dead corpse, and other such usages, in the place where it lies before it be carried, are superstitious, . . . therefore let all such things be laid aside.” These words show plainly what practices are condemned by the Directory as superstitious, viz., “the custom of kneeling down and praying by or towards the dead corpse.” The Directory does not condemn reading of Scripture in the house of mourning, nor does it condemn prayer as superstitious; such a prohibition would do away with family worship during the time the body lay in the house, and would be contrary to Scripture. What the Directory condemns is “the kneeling down and praying by or towards the corpse” in the place where it lies before it is carried to burial, such as was customary in the Romish practices then prevalent at lyke-wakes.
But what has Scripture to say on these matters? Is there any evidence either in the Old or New Testament that there were religious exercises at burials? We think not. Were there any religious exercises at the most solemn burial that the world has ever seen? We read when the body of the Lord Jesus was put into the new-made tomb, that the mourners brought a mixture of aloes and myrrh, and wound the body of Jesus in linen clothes with the spices. Is there a word about prayer or religious exercises at Stephen’s burial? Will anyone dare to say that the practice here was heathenish and cold because there was no prayer or singing at the grave? One of the most extraordinary reasons we ever heard for the custom of praying at the grave was that our Lord prayed at the grave of Lazarus. Why should He not? Did He pray when Lazarus was being buried? The question needs no answer to anyone who has read his New Testament. To quote the weighty words of Dr MacCrie:—”There was no funeral service among the primitive Christians. When our Saviour died, Joseph of Arimathea, a counsellor, and Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, obtained permission to inter Him, and they performed this office with all due reverence and honour. ‘They brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight, and took the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.’ But they performed no religious service over Him. And when the women came to His sepulchre, early in the first day of the week, it was not to pray, or read, or sing over it, but to anoint His body with spices they had prepared.” In the case of the first person who was honoured to fall a martyr to Christianity, we are informed that ‘devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.’ But devout as they were, and deeply as they lamented his loss, we do not read of their performing a single religious act or rite over his grave. Nor is there the slightest vestige in the New Testament of any such practice among primitive Christians. . . . The rites of sepulture introduced into Christian worship were borrowed, not from the Jews, but from the Heathens. . . . Among others, the following ceremonies may be mentioned:—Supplications addressed to the god whose province it was to carry the spirit to the regions below, just before the pangs of death—the invocations of the manes, or calling on the dead at regular intervals—the ringing of bells or brazen vessels at the moment of dissolution, to drive away the furies?” (Miscellaneous Writings, p. 570).
Dr W. H. Bennett, in Hastings’ “Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics,” says: “There does not seem to have been any formal burial service of a religious character in Biblical times, but then, and later, funeral orations were sometimes delivered” (iv. 499). As for the early Christians, there were no religious services at the grave. It was only as time went on and the high respect paid to martyrs developed into a kind of superstitious respect for the sainted dead that the practice of kneeling down and praying by, and, later on, to the corpse, became a custom and was extended to all the dead. It was this superstition that the Scottish Reformers and Puritans wished to stamp out, and which they did effectually stamp out, so that until recent times it was unpractised by Scottish Presbyterians. We leave it with fair-minded people to say whether the Free Presbyterian Church has a good case in this matter, whether regarded from the Biblical or early Christian or Reformation standpoints.*
*In next issue we purpose giving extracts from Dr MacCrie’s famous pamphlet on the “Religious Celebration of the Funeral of the Princess Charlotte.” The foregoing article on Prayer at the Grave appeared in the Magazine in 1909 (XIV. 220), and with revisions and additions is reprinted by us.—Editor.
We Must Die.
‘Tis a solemn thought when we consider we are living in that speck of time, between the eternity that is past and the eternity that is to come. Soon time, with us, will be ended, and we shall enter that vast eternity. It matters but little to me, whether I now address the young or the old. Should you that are young live to be as old as I now am [86], you will be astonished at the little space of time between youth and old age. There is not one, old like myself, but will say when he looks back to the time when he was at school, that it appears but as yesterday. Oh! ’tis a solemn thought, that when we were born, we were born for eternity, and as sure we were born, so surely we must die—and how uncertain when!—Rowland Hill.