chapter 6. From chapter 25 to the end of the book, there is little that

does not relate to the ark, and other local and temporary particulars, except chapters 32, 33, 34, which are accordingly read. Chapters 35 and 40 are retained in the Scottish calendar. Of Leviticus, (27 chapters,) as it treats chiefly of Jewish sacrifices, and ceremonial observances of clean and unclean beasts and birds, lepers, &c., only 4 chapters are read, viz. the 18, 19, 20, and 26. In the Scottish calendar the 9, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 27 are retained. Of Numbers, (36 chapters,) the first 10 chapters are omitted, which relate to the men of war, the Levites, their services and offerings. Chapters 15, 18, 19, 26, 28, 29, 33, and 34 are also omitted, as containing similar subjects; the Scottish liturgy retains chapters 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 15. All Deuteronomy (34 chapters) is read, except chapter 23, which the Scottish calendar retains, while it rejects chapter 14. In Joshua, (24 chapters,) the history contained from chapter 11 to 22, treating of the destruction of several kings, and the division of the land of Canaan, is not read; but chapters 14, 20, and 22 are retained in the Scottish calendar. The whole of the book of Judges is read, (21 chapters,) and also that of Ruth (4 chapters). So are also the two books of Samuel (the first, “otherwise called the First Book of the Kings,” containing 31 chapters; and the second, “otherwise called the Second Book of the Kings,” containing 24 chapters). Also the two Books of Kings (the first, “commonly called the Third Book of the Kings,” containing 22 chapters, and the second, “commonly called the Fourth Book of the Kings,” containing 25 chapters). Both the Books of Chronicles (the first containing 29 chapters, and the second 36 chapters) are entirely omitted, probably because they consist of the details of facts which are related in the preceding historical books. In the Scottish calendar, 1 Chronicles, chap. 10, is to be read instead of the apocryphal lessons, at morning prayer on November 23; and then from 13 to 22, with 28, 29, and 30. Of 2 Chronicles, 1, 2, 5, 6, &c. to 36, are read, extending to evening prayer, on December 16. Of Ezra, (10 chapters,) chapter 2, being a catalogue of names, is omitted, as are also chapters 8 and 10, partly for the same reason. In the Scottish calendar, chapter 7 is omitted, and 8 and 10 retained. Of Nehemiah, (13 chapters,) 3, 7, 11, and 12, consisting of the names of the builders of the wall, genealogies, &c., are omitted. Of Esther, (10 chapters,) the 10th, containing only three verses, is omitted, probably on that account. In the Scottish calendar chapters 9 and 10 make one lesson; a rare occurrence in that calendar, but frequent in ours. The whole of the Book of Job (consisting of 42 chapters) is read. The Book of Psalms (150) is passed over as being otherwise used. Of Proverbs, (31 chapters,) chapter 30, the Prayer of Agur, &c., is alone omitted; but the Scottish calendar retains it. The book of Ecclesiastes (12 chapters) is read throughout; but the whole of the Song of Solomon (8 chapters) is omitted; as containing mystical descriptions not likely to edify. The Jews did not permit this book to be read by any one under thirty years of age. The whole Book of Isaiah is read, (66 chapters,) but not in its regular place, as before remarked; the 1st chapter being read on the 23rd of November, and the 66th concluding the year. In the Scottish calendar it retains its proper place. The whole of Jeremiah (52 chapters) with the Lamentations of Jeremiah (5 chapters) are read throughout. Of Ezekiel (48 chapters) only 9 are read, viz. 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 18, 33, and 34. For the omission of so large a portion may be assigned the reason given for the omission of almost the whole of the Revelation. It consists in a great degree of visions, many of which are very obscure even to the most learned. The Scottish liturgy retains nearly the whole book. The remainder of the Old Testament is read through regularly, viz. Daniel, 12 chapters; Hosea, 14 chapters; Joel, 3 chapters; Amos, 9 chapters; Obadiah, 1 chapter; Jonah, 4 chapters; Micah, 7 chapters; Nahum, 3 chapters; Habakkuk, 3 chapters; Zephaniah, 3 chapters; Haggai, 2 chapters; Zechariah, 14 chapters; Malachi, 4 chapters.

See more fully, as to the subjects of the omitted chapters, _Bennet’s Paraphrase, Common Prayer_, Appendix; and _Shepherd, Common Prayer_.

Of the apocryphal lessons, (from ἀπὸ τῆς κρύπτης, _removed from the place, or chest_ where the sacred books were kept; or from ἀποκρυπτω, _to conceal or hide_; i. e. either as being kept from the people, or as not being canonical; and see fully _Hey’s Lectures_, and _Bingham’s Antiquities_, book xiv. ch. 3, sec. 15, 16,) those read and those omitted are as follows:—The whole of Esdras (2 books, of 9 and 16 chapters) is omitted. The whole book of Tobit (14 chapters) is read, except chapter 5. The whole of Judith (16 chapters) is read. The remainder of the Book of Esther (6½ chapters) is passed over. The Wisdom of Solomon (19 chapters) is read throughout. And the whole of the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, (51 chapters,) except the 26, and part of the 25, 30, and 46. The whole of Baruch is read (6 chapters). But the Song of the Three Children, (1 chapter,) a continuation of Daniel iii. 23, is omitted; principally, perhaps, as the greater part of it is the “Benedicite,” &c. The History of Susannah (1 chapter) and that of Bel and the Dragon (1 chapter) are both read. The two Books of Maccabees (16 chapters and 15 chapters) are omitted.

We fix articles of faith, and things necessary to salvation, upon the Scriptures; we do not allow any part of the apocrypha a casting voice in the establishment of any doctrine.—_Boys on the Thirty-Nine Articles._

The New Testament is read through three times in the year, for the second lessons; i. e. the Four Gospels and the Acts, for the second lessons in the morning service; and the Epistles (the Revelation of St. John being omitted) for the second lesson in the evening service. The Gospel of St. Matthew, and the Epistle to the Romans, beginning respectively on the 1st day of January—the 3rd and 2nd of May—and the 31st of August—the 1st chapter of St. Luke being, on the first and third reading, divided into two portions, and the 7th chapter of Acts on the third reading. Of the Epistles, the 2nd and 3rd chapters of 1 Timothy and of Titus, are read together; as are also the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of St. John, on the first and second reading, but not on the third. This order is broken into only on four Sundays in the year, i. e. the sixth Sunday in Lent, (or Sunday before Easter,) Easter day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday, but more frequently in holy-days; for all which days proper lessons are appointed.

The Book of the Revelation of St. John is wholly omitted, except on his own peculiar day, when the 1st and 22nd chapters (the first and the last) are read; and on All-saints day, when part of the 19th chapter is read.

When a Sunday and a saint’s day coincide, we appear to be left in some degree of uncertainty, whether the first lesson together with the service for the holy-day, or that for the Sunday, is to be read. The consequence is, says Archdeacon Sharp, (_Visit._ ch. 3, Disc. iv.,) that the clergy differ in their practice, and use the service appropriated to that festival, to which, in their private opinion, they give the preference. Some choose to intermix them, using the collects appointed to each, and preferring the first lesson for the Sunday, taken out of a canonical book, to that for the holy-day, if it happens to be appointed in the Apocrypha. Uniformity of practice was certainly intended by the Church, and what now may seem to require the direction of a rubric, or at least the decision of the diocesan, our forefathers, in all probability, thought sufficiently plain. They knew that, prior to the Reformation, (admitting that the practice of England corresponded with that of the Roman and Gallican Churches,) the service for all the holy-days now retained being “Doubles,” generally took place of that appointed for ordinary Sundays, excepting those of Advent and Lent, with Easter day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday. They would, therefore, naturally read the service for the saint’s day, and omit that for the Sunday in general. This continues to be the practice of the Roman Church, and it was the practice of the Gallican Church for more than a century after the æra of our Reformation. In some parts of the late Gallican Church a change took place about the beginning of the present century, and the service for the Sunday was appointed to supersede that for the saint’s day. But in our Church no such alterations have been made by lawful authority. Hence it would appear that the service for the saint’s day, and not that for the Sunday, should be used. And notwithstanding there exists some diversity of opinion on this subject, yet the most general practice seems to be to read the collect, Epistle, and Gospel for the saint’s day; and it is most consonant to that practice to read also the first lesson appropriated to that day. This remark I have heard made by the lord bishop of London.—_Shepherd._

When the feast day falls upon a Sunday, it was ordered in the service of Sarum, that the Sunday service should give way to the proper service ordained for the festival, except some peculiar Sunday only, and then the one or the other was transferred to some day of the week following.—_Bp. Cosin._

LETTERS OF ORDERS. (See _Orders_.) The bishop’s certificate of his having ordained a clergyman, either priest or deacon. Churchwardens have the power to demand a sight of the letters of orders of any one offering to assist in the church of which they are the guardians.

LEVITICUS, a canonical book of Scripture, being the third book of the Pentateuch of Moses; thus called because it contains principally the laws and regulations relating to the priests, the Levites, and sacrifices; for which reason the Hebrews call it the priests’ law, because it includes many ordinances concerning sacrifices. The Jews term it likewise _Vajicra_, because in Hebrew it begins with this word, which signifies, “_and he called_.”

All the world agree, that Leviticus is a canonical book, and of Divine authority. It, as well as the rest of the Pentateuch, is generally held to be the work of Moses. It contains the history of what passed during the eight days of Aaron’s and his sons’ consecration, which was performed in the year of the world 2514. The laws which were prescribed in it upon other subjects, besides sacrifices, have no other chronological mark, whereby we may be directed to judge at what time they were given. Only four chapters of Leviticus are read in our Church, as remarked in the article on _Lessons_.

LIBELLATICI. A designation of one kind of the lapsed from Christianity in times of persecution. They are first mentioned in the Decian persecution, and the origin of the name seems to have been this. It is probable that the emperor had decreed that every one who was accused or suspected of being a Christian, should be permitted to purge himself before a magistrate, on which occasion a _libellus_ or certificate was given him, that he had never been a Christian, or that he had abjured the name of CHRIST. Some Christians, who were not so abandoned as to forsake the true faith utterly, were yet weak and dishonest enough to procure those _libelli_, or certificates, by fraudulent compromise with the magistrate: thus avoiding, as they might hope, the sin of apostasy, and at the same time escaping the sufferings and penalties of convicted Christians. The Church, however, refused to sanction their deceit and cowardice, and they were classed among the lapsed, though not considered quite so culpable as the _Sacrificati_ and _Thurificati_.

LIBERTINES. A sect of Christian heretics, whose ringleaders were Quintin, a tailor of Picardy, and one Copin, who about 1525 divulged their errors in Holland and Brabant: they maintained that whatsoever was done by men, was done by the SPIRIT OF GOD; and from thence concluded there was no sin, but to those that thought it so, because all came from GOD: they added, that to live without any doubt or scruple, was to return to the state of innocency, and allowed their followers to call themselves either Catholics or Lutherans, according as the company they lighted amongst, were.

LIGHTS ON THE ALTAR. Among the ornaments of the Church enjoined by the laws, and sanctioned by the usage of the Church of England, are two lights upon the altar, to be a symbol to the people that CHRIST, in his two-fold nature, is the very true Light of the world.

The laws of the Church, to which we refer, are as follows:

The rubric immediately preceding “the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer daily throughout the Year” stands thus:—

“_And here it is to be noted 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 authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign of Edward VI._”

But the rubrics are a part of the laws of the Church, framed by convocation, and ratified by parliament; so that, if it appear that in the second year of King Edward VI. lights were used, as in this rubric is mentioned, no authority short of a convocation for the Church, and for the State an act of parliament, can reverse the authority on which lights are still used upon the altar.

Now, in the injunctions of King Edward VI., set forth in 1547, it is expressly ordered, “_that all deans, archdeacons, parsons, vicars, and other ecclesiastical persons, shall suffer, from henceforth, no torches nor candles, tapers, or images of wax, to be set before any image or picture_. BUT ONLY TWO LIGHTS UPON THE HIGH ALTAR, BEFORE THE SACRAMENT, WHICH, FOR THE SIGNIFICATION THAT CHRIST IS THE VERY TRUE LIGHT OF THE WORLD, THEY SHALL SUFFER TO REMAIN STILL.”

Some persons who are ignorant of the history of those times, object that this injunction is not to the purpose, because we have no high altar: the truth is, that it is the high altar alone which is left in our churches, all the rest being removed by authority, on account of the idolatrous and corrupt practices which were connected with them.

It is also objected by some, who would be above falling into so great and unhappy a mistake as to suppose that the high altar is removed from our churches, that “the sacrament” before which, on the altar, the lights were to remain, is taken away; for by this term, say they, was meant the consecrated wafer, suspended in a pyx on the altar. If, then, this is taken away, so also must the lights be taken away which were to burn before it. But even allowing that the sacrament, in this sense, is removed, yet the injunction gives another reason for lights, and may surely be allowed to speak its meaning better than those who must, to serve their turn, give to it an idolatrous meaning. The injunction does not say that the lights are to remain before the sacrament as an additional kind of adoration of the host, but _for the signification that_ CHRIST _is the very true light of the world_. It would be very illiberal to suppose that those who quarrel with the lights deny the truth which they are thus made by authority to symbolize; but it is really strange that they will overlook this sound reason given by the injunction, in order to set forth a questionable reason not given, by way of getting rid of the obnoxious lights.

But the injunction not only thus explains itself, but is interpreted by the custom of the Church to enjoin the use of lights for the signification that CHRIST is the very true light of the world, after the pyx had been removed; for, from the time of Edward, there seems never to have been a time when the lights were not retained in cathedral churches, and wherever we might look for an authoritative interpretation of the law. And to the present day the candles are to be seen on the altar of almost all the cathedrals. In collegiate churches, also, they are usually found; and so also in the chapels royal, and in the chapels of the several colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. The use of these ornaments in Oxford and Cambridge is a matter of special importance, for it serves to give a singular character to the objection which some, even of the clergy, make to the candles on the ground of novelty. Almost every clergyman must again and again have seen on the altar of his college chapel these appropriate and symbolical ornaments; and yet some clergymen, when they wish to condemn them elsewhere, so far forget what they have seen as to call them a novelty.

In how many parochial churches, or chapels of ancient chapelries, or private chapels, in this kingdom, candles on the altar have been retained since the times of the Puritans, we know not; in some they certainly have been: but surely the rule of the Church being express for their use, the custom of those whose ritual and furniture is most carefully maintained under the eye of persons best qualified to judge in such matters, and the guardians of the Church’s constitution, is sufficient, _at the very least_, to serve as a witness to the rule, and to make it clear that it is still _the_ rule, _the acknowledged_ rule, of the Church of England.

Thus, then, the custom of the Church is with those who use, and not with those who omit the use of, lights, although custom is an argument brought confidently against them. And here also we may note that all the commentators on the Prayer Book, whose judgment we would look to with respect, agree in declaring that it is the law and the custom of the Church of England to retain the two lights on the altar.

That their use has been, however, too much neglected, cannot be denied; but, in fact, the disuse of lights, where they have been disused, when it is traced to its real cause, tells almost as much in their favour as the continued use of them where they are retained. It was not our reformers who removed them from the altar; we have already proved that they deliberately commanded their use: it was the Puritans, who took their origin in the days of Queen Elizabeth, from the refugees in Holland and Geneva during the persecutions of the bloody Queen Mary. There they learned a less Scriptural ritual, which, working on the saturnine dispositions of some, led eventually to the greatest extremes of fanaticism, impiety, and crime. As some controversy has arisen on this subject, as stated in former editions of this work, the following observations are added on a point of very minor importance, but still one on which correct information is interesting.

The ancient Church appears to have used lights, not only at those services which were performed at late hours, after sunset, or, as some have supposed, when the Christians assembled in caves of the earth, and in the catacombs at Rome, during the times of public persecution; but in token of public rejoicing, at festivals and other solemn occasions, during the day-time. St. Gregory Nazianzen speaks of lights as being carried at the funerals of pious Christians, probably of higher rank, as it occurs in his mention of the honours which were paid after death to the emperor Constantius.—_Orat._ iv. p. 118, ed. Morell. He also speaks of them as used at baptisms.—_Orat._ xl. p. 672. At the baptism of Theodosius the Younger, a little later than this, an early writer says that the crowd of noble persons bearing tapers made the earth appear as if spangled with stars.—_Marc. Diacon. Vit. Porphyr._ c. 7. It seems also to have been a practice at Church festivals, and solemn days kept in memory of saints and martyrs.—_S. Paulin. Nol. Carm._ vi. 35–37. _Greg. Nazianzen. Orat._ xxxix. and xlii.

Theodoret speaks of “the burning of incense and lights” as accompanying “the mystical sacrifice of the holy table.”—_Quæst. in Exod._ xxv.–xxviii. _Opp._ vol. i. p. 164, ed. Schulze. And St. Jerome, more distinctly, “In all the churches of the East, when the Gospel is about to be read, lights are kindled, though the sun may be shining bright, not to put the darkness to flight, but to show a sign of rejoicing.”—_Contr. Vigilantium_, tom. i. p. 394, ed. Vallars. It seems not at all improbable that Archbishop Theodore, coming as he did from Tarsus, may have introduced this custom of the Eastern Church among the Anglo-Saxons.

The mention of lamps and candlesticks among church furniture occurs in very early times. The passage referred to in a former edition of this work, may be found in Baluze, _Miscell._ tom. i. p. 22. The date of the acts there recited is said to be the year in which Diocletian was consul for the eighth time, and Maximian for the seventh, i. e. probably A. D. 296, a few years before the breaking out of the tenth persecution. The church furniture there said to be taken from the Christians of Cirta is set down as follows: “Two golden chalices, six silver chalices, six silver flagons or ewers, a silver round vessel, (_cucumellum_,) seven silver lamps, two candlestands, (_cereofala_,) seven short candlesticks with their lights, eleven brazen lamps with the chains on which they were hung,” and a quantity of male and female articles of clothing, which appear to have been kept in the church-stores for distribution to the poor. It seems not improbable that the two tall candlestands here mentioned, and the seven short candlesticks, each contained lights used at the reading of the Gospel; the former would be placed on the ground at a little distance in front of the holy table, the latter on the table itself. It was done, as Theodoret seems to show, in imitation of the solemnities in the temple service. The lamps would be for lighting the church after sunset.

Many records are found of the use of candlesticks and lamps in our national Church from the time of Bede to the Norman Conquest, particularly a remarkable list of church books and furniture, which is to be found in the will of Leofric, bishop of Exeter, in the time of Edward the Confessor.—For authorities see _Bishop Cosin_, _Wheatly_, _Bishop Mant_.

Though it might admit of a question, whether the very ancient and (at one time) universal custom of burning lights during the Communion Office, was ever abrogated by the permanent laws of our Church, still that custom, now plainly obsolete, is very different from retaining candlesticks on the altar, with tapers to be lighted when they are required. Queen Elizabeth, though opposed to superstition, yet had a crucifix, and “two candlesticks, and two tapers burning on the altar” of her chapel.—_Strype, Annals Ref._ 1559, p. 175; 1560, p. 200, fol. ed. And though objections were made both by the archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop Cox, still it would appear that these were rather directed to the use of the crucifix; and nothing is said of the illegality of candles. For their use on the holy table, we have the continuous sanction of cathedrals, royal chapels, and colleges, down to the time of the Rebellion; and it could be, and has been, very amply shown that the replacing these articles of ecclesiastical furniture at the Restoration was very frequent. As an instance out of many, Parry, bishop of Ossory, in 1677, left by will a pair of large silver candlesticks gilt to Christ Church, Dublin. Bishop Cosin, speaking of the manner in which the communion (not _ought to be_, but) “is celebrated in our churches,” says it “is after this manner: first of all, it is enjoined, that the table or altar should be spread over with a clean linen cloth, or other decent covering; upon which the Holy Bible, the Common Prayer Book, the plate and chalice, are to be placed; _two wax_ candles are to be set upon it.”—_Nicholls on the Common Prayer_, Add. Notes, p. 34. It is difficult to believe that, had this been unlawful, the practice should have been so largely sanctioned by the heads of the Church, _especially by those who revised the Prayer Book_.

After all, are candlesticks and lights mere ornaments? They are something more; though ornamental in themselves, and in the position they occupy, they are for use, and are properly church furniture; and therefore no more within the contemplation of the rubric respecting ornaments, than the stalls, desks, eagle, communion rails, organ, or any other part of the moveable or permanent furniture of the church. There appears no sound reason, why, when the church must of necessity be lit, the ancient custom of lighting the chancel by means of two candlesticks on the holy table, should not be kept up according to ancient and unbroken usage. But if no part of the ecclesiastical furniture is to stand in the church, except when actually in use, this rule would lead to moveable pulpits, organs, &c. And, indeed, would be in a great measure impracticable.—_Stephens’s Common Prayer Book._

In Christ Church cathedral in Dublin, within memory, two silver gilt candlesticks with large wax candles in them always stood on the holy table on Sundays and holy-days, and were lit when required at the evening service, then celebrated at a late hour.—_Jebb._

In the _Hiereugia Anglicana_ there are a great many detailed proofs adduced of the use of lights and candlesticks on the holy table in the English Church, from the Reformation downwards. The authorities are all given.

LINCOLN. (See _Use_.)

LITANY. The term “Litany” is used by ancient writers in many different senses. At first it seems to have been applied as a general appellation for all prayers and supplications, whether public or private. In the fourth century it was given more especially to those solemn offices which were formed with processions of the clergy and people. _Public_ supplications and prayers to GOD, on occasions of especial urgency, were certainly prevalent in the Church during the fourth and fifth centuries. (See _Rogation Days_.) These supplications were called _Litanies_ in the Eastern Church, from whence the name passed to the West. Here they were known as _Rogations_ or supplications, until the name of _Litany_ became more prevalent than any other. The Church of England appears to have received the stated Rogation or Litany days of the Gallican Church at an early period; and, from that time to the present, she has reckoned them among her days of fasting. Formerly, in this Church, there were processions on all these days.

The Litany of the Church of England is not an exact transcript of any ancient form, though composed of materials of very ancient date. It differs essentially from the Romish Litanies by containing no invocations to angels and departed saints. Our invocations are made to the three persons of the sacred TRINITY, and to them alone, while the office of Mediator and Intercessor is throughout ascribed only to our LORD JESUS CHRIST.

In the original arrangement, the Litany formed a distinct service, not used at the time of the other services. But by later usage it has been united with the morning prayer, though still retaining its separate place in the Prayer Book. Formerly there was a rubric, requiring that, “after morning prayer, the people being called together by the ringing of a bell, and assembled in the church, the English Litany shall be said after the accustomed manner;” and it was also required by the 15th canon, that “every householder dwelling within half a mile of the church should come or send some one at the least of his household, fit to join with the minister in prayers.” The ordinary arrangement was to hold morning prayer at eight o’clock, the Litany and the Communion at ten. This practice is still observed in some of the English churches; and Bishop White, in his “Memoirs of the American Church,” remarks that when he was in England, being on a visit to the archbishop of Canterbury, he observed that on Wednesdays he, with the other bishops, retired to the chapel before dinner; and on accompanying them he found that their object was to use the Litany, in compliance with the original custom.

The Litany is usually considered as embracing four main divisions, viz. the INVOCATIONS, DEPRECATIONS, INTERCESSIONS, and SUPPLICATIONS.—See _Nicholls on the Common Prayer_.

The word Litany is used by the most ancient Greek writers for “an earnest supplication to the gods, made in time of adverse fortune:” and in the same sense it is used in the Christian Church for “a supplication and common intercession to God, when his wrath lies upon us.” Such a kind of supplication was the fifty-first Psalm, which begins with “Have mercy upon me,” &c., and may be called David’s Litany. Such was that Litany of GOD’S appointing (Joel ii. 17); where, in a general assembly, the priests were to say with tears, “Spare thy people, O LORD,” &c. And such was that Litany of our SAVIOUR, (Luke xxii. 42,) which kneeling he often repeated with strong crying and tears (Heb. v. 7); and St. Paul reckons up “supplications” among the kinds of Christian offices, which he enjoins shall be daily used (1 Tim. ii. 1); which supplications are generally expounded Litanies for removal of some great evil. As for the form in which they are now made, namely, in short requests by the priests, to which the people all answer, St. Chrysostom saith it is derived from the primitive age. And not only the Western, but the Eastern Church also, have ever since retained this way of praying. This was the form of the Christians’ prayers in Tertullian’s time, on the days of their stations, Wednesdays and Fridays, by which he tells us they removed drought. Thus, in St. Cyprian’s time, they requested God for deliverance from enemies, for obtaining rain, and for removing or moderating his judgments. And St. Ambrose hath left a form of Litany, which bears his name, agreeing in many things with this of ours. For when miraculous gifts ceased, they began to write down divers of those primitive forms, which were the original of our modern office: and about the year 400 these Litanies began to be used in procession, the people walking barefoot, and saying them with great devotion. And Mamertus, bishop of Vienna, did collect a Litany to be so used, by which his country was delivered from dreadful calamities, in the year 460. And soon after, Sidonius, bishop of Arverne, [Clermont in Auvergne,] upon the Gothic invasion, made use of the same office; and about the year 500, [511,] the Council of Orleans enjoined they should be used at one certain time of the year, in this public way of procession; and in the next century, Gregory the Great did, out of all the Litanies extant, compose that famous sevenfold Litany, by which Rome was delivered from a grievous mortality, which hath been a pattern to all Western Churches ever since; and ours comes nearer to it than that in the present Roman missal, wherein later popes had put in the invocation of saints, which our reformers have justly expunged. But by the way we may note, that the use of Litanies in procession about the fields, came up but in the time of Theodosius in the East, and in the days of Mamertus of Vienna, and Honoratus of Marseilles, namely, in the year 460, in the West; and it was later councils which did enjoin the use of it in Rogation Week; but the forms of earnest supplications were far more ancient and truly primitive. As for our own Litany, it is now enjoined on Wednesdays and Fridays, the two ancient fasting days of the Christians, in which they had of old more solemn prayers; and on Sundays, when there is the fullest assembly: and no Church in the world hath so complete a form, as the curious and comprehensive method of it will declare.—_Dean Comber._

Epiphanius referreth this order to the apostles. The Jews in their synagogues observed for their special days of assembling together those that dwelt in villages, Mondays and Thursdays besides the sabbath. The precedent of the Jews directed the Church not to do less than they did. They made choice of Mondays and Thursdays, in regard of some great calamities that befell their nation upon those days; and that they might not be three days together without doing some public service to GOD. The Church had the like reason of Wednesdays and Fridays, whereon our SAVIOUR was betrayed and crucified; the moral reason of once in three days, with a convenient distance from Sunday, concurring. The observance of these days for public assemblies was universal, and the practice of the oldest times.—_Bp. Cosin._

Next to the Morning and Evening Service in our Prayer Book stands the Litany, or more earnest supplication for averting GOD’S judgments, and procuring his mercy. This earnestness, it was thought, would be best excited and expressed by the people’s interposing frequently to repeat with their own mouths the solemn form of “beseeching” GOD to “deliver” and to “hear” them: in which however the minister is understood to join equally; as the congregation are in every particular specified by him. Such Litanies have been used in the Church at least 1400 years. And they were appointed first for Wednesdays and Fridays, these being appropriated to penitence and humiliation, and for other fasts; but not long after for Sundays also, there being then the largest congregation, and most solemn worship: and our Litany is further directed to be used at such other times as the ordinary shall think proper. Originally it was intended for a distinct service, to come after the Morning Prayer, as the rubric of our liturgy still directs, and before the office for the Communion, at a proper distance of time from each: of which custom a few churches preserve still, or did lately, some remains. But, in the rest, convenience or inclination hath prevailed to join them all three together, excepting that in some places there is a psalm or anthem between the first and second; and between the second and third, almost everywhere: besides that the latter part of the Morning Prayer is, most of it, ordered to be omitted, when the Litany is said with it. But still by this close conjunction many things may appear improper repetitions, which, if the offices were separate, would not. However, as it is, they who use extempore prayers in public have small right to reproach us on this head. For doth it not frequently happen that, during one assembly of theirs, different ministers praying successively, or the same minister in several prayers, or perhaps in one only, shall fall into as many repetitions, as are in the different parts of our liturgy, or more? But, be that as it will, to these last all persons would easily be reconciled, if an interval were placed, in their minds at least, between the services; and they would consider each, when it begins, as a new and independent one, just as if it were a fresh time of meeting together.

The Litany of our Church is not quite the same with any other, but differs very little from those of the Lutherans in Germany and Denmark. It is larger than the Greek, but shorter than the Roman, which is half filled up with the names of saints invoked; whereas we invoke, first, the three persons of the holy TRINITY, separately and jointly; then, in a more particular manner, our Redeemer and Mediator, “to whom all power is given in heaven and earth.” (Matt. xxviii. 18.)—_Abp. Secker._.

The posture in which the minister is to repeat the Litany, is not prescribed in any present rubric, except that, as it is now a part of the Morning Service for the days above mentioned, it is included in the rubric at the end of the suffrages after the second LORD’S Prayer, which orders “all to kneel” in that place, after which there is no direction for “standing.” And the injunctions of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth both appoint, that “the priests, with others of the choir, shall kneel in the midst of the church, and sing or say plainly and distinctly the Litany, which is set forth in English, with all the suffrages following, to the intent the people may hear and answer,” &c. As to the posture of the people, nothing needs to be said in relation to that, because, whenever the priest kneels, they are always to do the same.—_Wheatly._

If the Litany be, as certainly it is, our most fervent address to GOD, fit is it that it should be made in the most significant, that is, in the lowest, posture of supplication.—_L’Estrange._

The Litany hath been lately brought into that absolute perfection, both for matter and form, as not any Church besides can show the like, so complete and full;... so that needs must they be upbraided, either with error, or somewhat worse, whom in all parts this principal and excellent prayer doth not fully satisfy.—_Bishop Cosin._

The Litanies in the Roman and the English unreformed Church were said on Easter eve, St. Mark’s day, the three Rogation days, and Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. The Litany of the Church of England is used on Wednesdays and Fridays, as was the Lenten practice of the West, and its Sunday use is in conformity to the prayers resembling it, which are found at the beginning of the directed communion offices.

In many choirs now, formerly in all, (as would appear from direct notice,) the Litany was sung, since the Reformation, by two ministers, (sometimes deacons,) at other times by laymen, at the faldstool in the centre of the choir. The singing by two laymen is a manifest abuse, reprehended by most of our ritualists; and seems to have arisen from a misconstruction of the ancient rules, which directed it to be sung by two of the choir: but the choir included priests and deacons, and clergy in orders, though of the _second form_.

As to the latter part of the Litany however, the rubric, added at the last review, is confirmatory of the ancient practice of the Church, which assigned the performance of this part to the priest, or superior minister. This is observed in many choirs. And at Oxford and Cambridge, on those days when the Litany is performed before the university, the vice-chancellor, if in orders, reads the LORD’S Prayer, and the remaining part.—_Jebb._

The Latin Litany is performed on certain days before the university at Oxford and Cambridge. Its musical arrangement, as retained at Oxford, contains the most solemn harmonies known to the Church.

LITERÆ FORMATÆ. According to the rules and practice of the ancient Church, no Christian could travel without taking letters of credence with him from his own bishop, if he meant to communicate with the Church in a foreign country. These letters were of several kinds, according to the different occasions, or quality of the person who carried them. They are generally reduced to three kinds, _commendatory_, _communicatory_, and _dimissory_. The first were such as were granted only to persons of quality, or to persons whose reputation had been called in question, or to the clergy who had occasion to travel in foreign countries. The second sort were granted to all who were in peace and communion of the Church, whence they were also called _pacifical_ and _ecclesiastical_, and sometimes _canonical_. The third sort were given only to the clergy, when they were removing from one church to settle in another, and they were to testify that the bearer had the bishop’s leave to depart, whence they were called _dimissory_. All these went under the general name of _formed letters_, because they were written in a particular form, with particular marks and characters, whereby they might be distinguished from counterfeits.—_Bingham._

LITURGIUM. (_Gr._) The name of a book, in the Greek Church, containing the three liturgies of St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and that of the _Presanctified_, said to be composed by Pope Gregory, called _Dialogus_.

In celebrating these three liturgies, the Greeks observe the following order. The liturgy of St. Basil, as appears by the introduction, is sung over ten times in the year; namely, on the eve of Christmas day, on the feast of St. Basil, on the eve of the feast of Lights, on the Sundays of Lent, excepting Palm Sunday, on the festival of the Virgin, and on the Great Sabbath. The liturgy of the _Presanctified_ is repeated every day in Lent, the forementioned days excepted. The rest of the year is appropriated to the liturgy of St. Chrysostom. (See _Liturgy_.)

LITURGY. (See _Common Prayer_, _Formulary_, and _Public Worship_.) From the Greek word λειτουργία, _a public act_ or _duty_. This term was originally used to denote the service or form employed in the celebration of the eucharist. In the Eastern Churches, that service was frequently called the “Divine” or “mystical” liturgy; while in the West, though the term “liturgy” was used, yet the name of “missa” was more common. At the present day, the word is employed to designate the ordinary prescribed service of the Church, either with or without the Communion Office. (See article on _Formularies_, where the general question of forms of prayer is treated.) The history of liturgies may thus be briefly stated.

When the Christians were no longer in fear of the violence and persecutions of the heathens, and in that age when the Church came to be settled, (that is, from the time of Constantine to that of St. Augustine,) we find there was a liturgy in the Eastern Church.

The first Cyril of Jerusalem mentions some parts of an ancient liturgy used in that place, both in respect to the form of baptism, and the celebration of the eucharist.

St. Basil composed a liturgy himself, which is to be seen in the _Bibliotheca Patrum_, and in his book _De_ SPIRITU SANCTO; and he tells us how the service of the Church was directed by rules and rubrics.

In St. Chrysostom’s time, _Omnes unam eandemque precem concipiēbant_, and this was not only a public prayer, but a public form; for in that collection of his works set forth by Sir Henry Saville, we find a liturgy of his own making, which was translated out of the Syriac by Masius, and used generally throughout all the Greek churches.

Now, if it should be granted that premeditated prayers are not required by GOD in our private addresses to him, yet it is plain from those instances already mentioned, such prayers were always held necessary in the public services of the Church; and this further appears by the form prescribed by our SAVIOUR himself, who, when we pray, commanded us to say, “Our FATHER,” &c.; and St. Matthew tells us, that he went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the _same words_.

The Apostolical Canons mention some set forms of prayer, both before and after the communion; and St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, before mentioned, not only composed set forms themselves, but they describe set liturgies as having been composed by St. Mark and St. James; and the adversaries to such forms have no other plausible pretence to deny these authorities than by alleging these liturgies to be supposititious, which is an answer that may serve upon any occasion to evade an argument, which cannot otherwise be answered.

St. Ambrose and Prosper tell us, there were set forms of prayers used in the Church in their time; and they give the reason for it, _ne in diversum intellectum nostro evagemur arbitrio_: and St. Hilary hath this expression on the 66th Psalm, viz. Let those without the Church hear the voice of the people praying within. Now the word _praying of the people_ must signify something more than the bare suffrage _Amen_; it must import their joint concurrence in the actual performance of the whole duty, which cannot be done but where the prayers are in a set form.

And these are the prayers which Isidore tells us were used in the ancient congregations of the Christians; and it is most certain that such were in use in that great apostate Julian’s time; for Nazianzen informs us, that he endeavoured to establish the heathen ceremonies in imitation of the Christian services, by appointing, not only certain times, but set forms of prayer.

It is true, that many of the ancient liturgies were destroyed by the persecuting heathens, yet some fragments of them still remain in the writings of the Fathers, and are such as are used in our Church at this day; as the words before and after the consecration of the sacrament are to be found in St. Ambrose: the question demanded of the godfathers in the sacrament of baptism, viz. “Whether they do, in the name of the infant, renounce the devil and all his works, and the pomps and vanities of this wicked world,” are to be found in the same St. Ambrose, and in Tertullian; the _Gloria Patri_, of which more hereafter, is in Sozomen; and the supplement to that doxology, viz. “As it was in the beginning,” &c., is to be found in Irenæus.

In the sacrament of the LORD’S supper, the words pronounced by the priest, viz. “Lift up your hearts,” and the answer, “We lift them up; it is meet and right for us so to do,” are to be found in St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom; and so are these words, viz. “The LORD be with you, And with thy spirit;” and, lastly, Isidore mentions the usual conclusion of all our collects, viz. “Through JESUS CHRIST our LORD,” &c.

In the Western Church, St. Cyprian tells us there was a liturgy, viz. in the Church of Africa, which is usually accounted amongst the Churches of the West; and we find some pieces of such liturgies in St. Augustine; and not only approved by him, but by all the Fathers of that Church assembled in a synod, as it appears by the canons which they made, and which are mentioned both by Balsamon and Zonaras, viz. that prayers be performed by all, and not any to be said in public, but only such as have been composed by wise and understanding men, lest anything should be vented against the faith, either through ignorance or want of meditation.

Tertullian mentions a liturgy used in Rome, which was probably begun by St. Peter, for it bears his name; and Platina tells us, that several additions were made to it by St. Basil in his time; and in some things this author is very particular, as that Celestine added the _Introitus_, Gregory added the _Kyrie Eleison_, Telesphorus the _Gloria in Excelsis_, Sixtus the First added “Holy, holy, holy, LORD GOD of Hosts,” which is called the _Trisagion_; Gelasius the Collects, St. Jerome the Epistles and Gospels.

The _Gloria Patri_, which has been mentioned before, was not only appointed by the Council of Nice to encounter the Arian heresy, but it was used long before that council, even by the apostles themselves, who were commanded by their Master to baptize in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST.

This is found in the writings of all those ancient fathers who lived near the time of the apostles, as in Clemens, who was their scholar, and in Dionysius of Alexandria; but the following words, which make up the whole form of the doxology, viz. “As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end,” were not brought into the Church till the Arian heresy began to spread, and this was about the time of the Council of Nice.

It is true this began first in the Eastern Church, and from thence it came to the West, where Pope Damasus [A. D. 366–384] was the first who appointed it to be used at the end of the psalms, which made up the greatest part of the public liturgy of that Church. The Churches of France, Spain, and England had the like liturgies, though not exactly the same.

Although we have no certain account what rites or forms were used here among the Britons, yet Bede, in his ecclesiastical history, tells us, that as soon as the gospel was planted here, there was a liturgy formed out of the rituals of the most flourishing Churches then in the world. For Pope Gregory advised St. Augustine not to follow the Roman office strictly, but to take what he should approve in any Church, and prescribe the same to the English, which he did; and this liturgy of St. Augustine continued for some ages, till Osmond, bishop of Sarum, [A. D. 1078,] finding that new prayers and offices abounded everywhere, reduced them all to one form, and from thence it was called _secundum usum Sarum_.

The liturgy of the Irish Church, according to Mr. Palmer, was, during the first ages, probably the same as that of Britain. The ancient Irish liturgy still extant differs considerably from the Roman. It seems, he adds, that in later times there were great varieties in the mode of celebrating Divine worship in Ireland, which were mentioned by Gillebert, bishop of Limerick, A. D. 1090. And which appear to have been removed by the Synod of Arles, A. D. 1152, when the Roman rites were established.

By the seventh statute of the Synod, or rather Council, of Cashel, 1172, the regulations of the Irish Church were assimilated to those of England. The use of Sarum was adopted; though it has been supposed that the Irish use lingered for a considerable time in parts of the more distant provinces.

As to the liturgy now used amongst us, it was reformed at the time of the Reformation: for the offices of the Church before that time consisting in missals, breviaries, psalteries, graduals, and pontificals, and every religious order having peculiar rites observed among themselves, it was thought proper that the worship of GOD should be brought under a set form; and moreover, that nothing should be changed merely out of an affectation of novelty, or because it had been used in times of Popery, so as it had been practised in the primitive times. (See next article.)

LITURGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. (See _Common Prayer_ and _Formulary_.) This book is entitled _The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland_.

Before the Reformation, our liturgy was only in Latin, being a collection of prayers, made up partly of some ancient forms used in the primitive Church, and partly of some others of later original. But when the nation, in King Henry VIII.’s time, was disposed to a reformation, it was thought necessary both to have the service in the English or vulgar tongue, and to correct and amend the liturgy, by purging it of those gross corruptions which had gradually crept into it.

And, first, the convocation appointed a committee, A. D. 1537, to compose a book, which was entitled “_The godly and pious Institution of a Christian Man_, containing a declaration of the _Lord’s Prayer_, the _Ave Maria_, the _Creed_, the _Ten Commandments_, and the _Seven Sacraments_, &c.” This book was again published in 1539, with corrections and alterations. In 1543 appeared another Primer, in substance the same as the former, under the title of “_A necessary doctrine and Erudition for any Chrysten Man_.” In the same year, a committee of bishops and other divines was appointed by King Henry VIII., to reform the rituals and offices of the Church; and the next year the king and clergy ordered the prayers for processions and litanies to be put into English, and to be publicly used. The English Litany accordingly, not much differing from that now in use, was publicly adopted in 1544. Afterwards, in 1545, came out the King’s Primer, containing the whole Morning and Evening Prayer in English, not very different from what is in our present Common Prayer. Thus far the reformation of our liturgy was carried in the reign of Henry VIII.

In the year 1547, the first of King Edward VI., the convocation unanimously declared, that the communion ought to be administered in both kinds; whereupon an act of parliament was made, ordering it to be administered. Then a committee of bishops and other learned divines was appointed, to compose _An uniform order of communion, according to the rules of Scripture, and the use of the primitive Church_. The committee accordingly met in Windsor Castle, and drew up such a form. This order of the communion was appointed for general use, by royal proclamation, in 1548. This made way for a new commission, empowering the same persons to finish the whole liturgy, by drawing up public offices for Sundays and holy-days, for baptism, confirmation, matrimony, burial, and other special occasions.

The committee appointed to compose this liturgy were—

1. Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury.

2. Thomas Goodrich, bishop of Ely.

3. Henry Holbech, bishop of Lincoln.

4. George Day, bishop of Chichester.

5. John Skip, bishop of Hereford.

6. Thomas Thirlby, bishop of Westminster.

7. Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, and afterwards of London.

8. Dr. William May, dean of St. Paul’s.

9. Dr. John Taylor, dean, afterwards bishop, of Lincoln.

10. Dr. Simon Haynes, dean of Exeter, and master of Queen’s College, Cambridge.

11. Dr. John Redman, prebendary of Westminster, and master of Trinity College, Cambridge.

12. Dr. Richard Cox, dean of Christ Church, Oxon., and Westminster; afterwards bishop of Ely.

13. Mr. Thomas Robertson, archdeacon of Leicester; afterwards dean of Durham.

Our excellent liturgy, thus compiled, was revised and approved by the archbishops, bishops, and clergy of both provinces of Canterbury and York, and then confirmed by the king and three estates in parliament, A. D. 1548, second and third of Edward VI. ch. 1. In 1549, an act passed for appointing six bishops and six other learned men, to draw up a form for consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons. Heylin conjectures that these were the same as those above mentioned, with the exception of Bishop Day, who had refused to subscribe the liturgy.

But, about the end of the year 1550, exceptions were taken against some parts of this book, and Archbishop Cranmer proposed a new review. The principal alterations occasioned by this second review were the addition of the _Sentences_, _Exhortation_, _Confession_, and _Absolution_, at the beginning of the morning and evening services, which in the first Common Prayer Book began with the LORD’S Prayer; the addition of the _Commandments_ at the beginning of the Communion Office; the removing of some rites and ceremonies retained in the former book, such as the use of oil in confirmation, the unction of the sick, prayers for departed souls, the invocation of the HOLY GHOST at the consecration of the eucharist, and the prayer of oblation that used to follow it; the omitting the rubric that ordered water to be mixed with the wine, with several other less material variations, The habits, likewise, which were prescribed in the former book were in this laid aside; and, lastly, a rubric was added at the end of the Communion Office, to explain the reason of kneeling at the sacrament. The liturgy, thus revised and altered, was again confirmed by parliament, A. D. 1551, with this declaration, that the alterations made in it proceeded from _curiosity rather that any worthy cause_. But both this and the former act in 1548 were repealed in the first year of Queen Mary.

Upon the accession of Queen Elizabeth, the act of repeal was set aside, and several learned divines appointed to take another review of King Edward’s liturgies. These (according to Camden and Strype) were—

1. Dr. Matthew Parker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury.

2. Dr. Richard Cox, afterwards bishop of Ely; one of the original compilers.

3. Dr. William May; one of the original compilers.

4. Dr. William Bill, afterwards dean of Westminster.

5. Dr. James Pilkington, afterwards bishop of Durham.

6. Sir Thomas Smith.

7. Mr. David Whitehead.

8. Mr. Edmund Grindal, afterwards bishop of London, and archbishop of York and Canterbury.

To these were afterwards added,

9. Dr. Edwyn Sandys, afterwards bishop of Worcester.

10. Mr. Edmund Guest, afterwards bishop of Rochester and Salisbury.

It was debated, at first, which of the two books of King Edward should be received. At length the second was pitched upon, and confirmed by parliament, which commanded it to be used, with one alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of the Litany altered and corrected, and two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants, and none other or otherwise.

The alteration in the Litany here mentioned was the leaving out the deprecation, “from the tyranny of the bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities,” and adding these words to the petition for the sovereign, “strengthen in the true worshipping of thee, in righteousness and holiness of life.” The two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament, were, “The body of our LORD JESUS CHRIST,” &c., and “The blood of our LORD JESUS CHRIST,” &c., which were taken out of King Edward’s First Book; whereas, in the Second Book, these sentences were left out, and in the room of them were used, “Take, eat, or drink, this,” with what follows; but now, in Queen Elizabeth’s book, both these forms were united.

There are some other variations in this book from the Second of King Edward. The first rubric, concerning the situation of the chancel, and the proper place of reading Divine service, was altered; the habits, enjoined by the First Book of King Edward, and forbidden by the Second, were now restored; at the end of the Litany was added a prayer for the sovereign, and another for the clergy. Lastly, the rubric, that was added at the end of the Communion Office, in King Edward’s Second Book, against our SAVIOUR’S corporeal presence in the sacrament, was left out in this. This was done, that the aforesaid notion might remain as a speculative opinion, not determined; it being the queen’s design to unite the nation, as near as possible, in one faith.

In this state the liturgy continued, without further alteration, till the first year of King James I.; when a conference was held at Hampton Court between that prince, with Archbishop Whitgift and other bishops and divines, on the one side, and Dr. Reynolds, with some other Puritans, on the other: the result of which was, the adding some forms of thanksgiving at the end of the Litany, and an addition to the catechism in relation to the sacraments. Likewise, in the rubric at the beginning of the Office for Private Baptism, the words “lawful minister” were inserted to prevent midwives and laymen from presuming to baptize, with one or two more small alterations.

But, immediately after the Restoration, King Charles II., at the request of several of the Presbyterian ministers, issued out a commission for a new review of the liturgy, empowering twelve of the bishops and twelve Presbyterian divines to make such reasonable and necessary alterations as they should jointly agree upon. Nine coadjutors were added on each side, to supply the place of any of the twelve principal who should happen to be absent. Their names are these:

_On the Episcopalian side._

Principals.

1. Dr. Frewen, archbishop of York.

2. Dr. Sheldon, bishop of London.

3. Dr. Cosin, bishop of Durham.

4. Dr. Warner, bishop of Rochester.

5. Dr. King, bishop of Chichester.

6. Dr. Henchman, bishop of Salisbury.

7. Dr. Morley, bishop of Worcester.

8. Dr. Sanderson, bishop of Lincoln.

9. Dr. Laney, bishop of Peterborough.

10. Dr. Walton, bishop of Chester.

11. Dr. Stern, bishop of Carlisle.

12. Dr. Gauden, bishop of Exeter.

Coadjutors.

1. Dr. John Erle, dean of Westminster, afterwards bishop of Worcester.

2. Dr. Peter Heylyn, prebendary of Westminster.

3. Dr. John Hackett, archdeacon of Bedford, afterwards bishop of Lichfield.

4. Dr. John Barwick, successively dean of Durham and St. Paul’s.

5. Dr. Peter Gunning, successively master of Corpus and St. John’s, Cambridge, afterwards bishop of Chichester.

6. Dr. John Pearson, successively master of Jesus and Trinity College, Cambridge, afterwards bishop of Chester.

7. Dr. Pierce.

8. Dr. Anthony Sparrow, archdeacon of Sudbury, afterwards bishop of Norwich.

9. Mr. Hubert Thorndike, prebendary of Westminster.

_On the Presbyterian side._

Principals.

1. Dr. Reynolds.

2. Dr. Tuckney.

3. Dr. Conant.

4. Dr. Spurstow.

5. Dr. Wallis.

6. Dr. Manton.

7. Dr. Calamy.

8. Mr. Baxter.

9. Mr. Jackson.

10. Mr. Case.

11. Mr. Clark.

12. Mr. Newcomen.

Coadjutors.

1. Dr. Horton.

2. Dr. Jacob.

3. Mr. Bates.

4. Mr. Rawlinson.

5. Mr. Cooper.

6. Dr. Lightfoot.

7. Dr. Collins.

8. Dr. Woodbridge.

9. Mr. Drake.

These commissioners had several meetings at the Savoy, but to very little purpose; the Presbyterians reviving all the old scruples of the Puritans against the liturgy, and adding several new ones of their own. Baxter had the assurance to affirm, that our liturgy was too bad to be mended, and confidently proposed to compose a new one, which he had the insolence to offer to the bishops. Upon this the conference broke up, without anything being done, except that some particular alterations were proposed by the episcopal divines; which, the May following, were considered and agreed to by the whole clergy in convocation. The principal of these alterations were, that several lessons in the calendar were changed for others more proper for the days; the prayers for particular occasions were disjoined from the Litany, and the two prayers to be used in the Ember weeks, the prayer for the parliament, that for all conditions of men, and the general thanksgiving, were added. Several of the collects were altered; the Epistles and Gospels were taken out of the last translation of the Bible, being read before according to the old translation. The Office for Baptism of those of Riper Years, and the Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea, were added. In a word, the whole liturgy was then brought to the state in which it now stands, and was unanimously subscribed by both houses of convocation of both provinces, on Friday, Dec. 20, 1661. And being brought to the House of Lords the March following, both Houses very readily passed an act for its establishment; and the Earl of Clarendon, then lord chancellor, was ordered to return the thanks of the lords to the bishops and clergy, for their care and industry shown in the review of it.

The English liturgy was adopted in Ireland shortly after the Reformation in England. In 1551, Edward VI. issued an injunction to Sir Anthony St. Leger, the lord deputy there, to have the English Common Prayer Book read in the Irish churches. The lord deputy accordingly summoned the whole clergy, and after opposition from the primate and some of the bishops, a proclamation was issued, and the English Prayer Book publicly used in Christ Church, on Easter Sunday that year: having been printed in Dublin, with these words on the title page, _After the use of the Church of England_. No order is extant for the adoption of King Edward’s Second Book; nor does it appear that any act was passed in Queen Mary’s reign prohibiting the use of the First. In 1560, an Act of Uniformity, copied from the English act, was passed, enjoining the Book of Common Prayer as then revised in England: this act was passed with the consent of seventeen out of nineteen prelates, that is, of the spiritual estate, as the Irish Church was then constituted. In 1662 the English revised liturgy was referred for consideration to the Irish bishops; on their approval it was passed by convocation; and nearly four years after, the Act of Uniformity was enacted by parliament.—See _Stephens’s Introduction to the Irish Book of Common Prayer_.

The peculiar excellencies of our Church of England service are to be traced to a variety of causes. One prominent cause is obvious and important; namely, that our reformers most closely adhered to the model of primitive devotion.... To approach, as near as possible, to the Church of the apostles, and to that of the old Catholic bishops and fathers, so long as they deemed it pure and unadulterated, was the paramount direction of their tastes, their judgments, and their hearts.... In the formation of our liturgy, it has been happily, and doubtless providentially, guarded alike from excess and deficiency. It possesses a peculiar temperament, equally remote from all extremes, and harmoniously blending all excellencies: it is not superstitious, it is not fanatical, it is not cold and formal, it is not rapturous and violent; but it unites, perhaps beyond any other human composition, sublime truth and pure spirit; the calmest wisdom and the most energetic devotion. Under various trying circumstances it has been so signally and repeatedly preserved, that we cannot doubt it is continued to us for some greater purpose than it has hitherto effected. While the very memory of many contending parties, that threatened its destruction, has nearly passed away, it remains uninjured and unaltered; giving us to conjecture, that it is reserved for still nobler, more extended, and more enduring triumphs.—_Bishop Jebb._

As for the English liturgy’s symbolizing with the Popish Missal, as some have odiously and falsely calumniated, it doth no more than our communion, or LORD’S supper celebrated in England, doth with the mass at Rome; or our doctrine about the eucharist doth with theirs about transubstantiation; or our humble veneration of our GOD and SAVIOUR in that mystery doth with their strange gesticulations and superstitions. In all which particulars, how much the Church of England differed both in doctrine and devotion from that of Rome, no man that is intelligent and honest can either deny or dissemble.—_Gauden’s Tears of the Church of England._

The Nonconformists say, the liturgy is in great part picked and culled out of the mass-book; but it followeth not thence, that either it is, or was esteemed by them, a devised or false worship; for many things contained in the mass-book itself are good and holy. A pearl may be found upon a dunghill. We cannot more credit the man of sin than to say, that everything in the mass-book is devilish and antichristian, for then it would be antichristian to pray unto GOD in the mediation of JESUS CHRIST—to read the Scriptures—to profess many fundamental truths necessary to salvation. Our service might be picked and culled out of the mass-book, and yet be free from all fault and tincture, from all show and appearance of evil; though the mass-book itself was fraught with all manner of abominations. It is more proper to say the mass was added to our Common Prayer, than that our Common Prayer was taken out of the mass-book; for most things in our Common Prayer were to be found in the liturgies of the Church long before the mass was heard of in the world.”—_Stillingfleet on Separation._

A man would wonder how it is possible for those, who understand wherein the iniquity of Popery consists, to make this objection against the Book of Common Prayer.

The Papists have corrupted Christianity by adding many unwarrantable particulars; whereas the Protestants have rejected those unwarrantable particulars, and retained pure Christianity. Wherefore, as the Protestant religion is very good, although it is in some sense the same with that of the Papists; so also may an English reformed Prayer Book be very good, although it be in some sense the same with the Popish liturgies. Upon supposition that the matter of fact were never so certainly true, and that the Book of Common Prayer were taken word for word out of the Popish liturgies, yet this is no just objection against it. For as the Popish religion is a mixture of things good and bad; so their liturgies are of the same kind. They contain many excellent prayers addressed to the true and only GOD; which every good Christian cannot but heartily approve of; though at the same time there are other prayers addressed to angels and saints, and containing unsound matter. So that it is possible for us to make a choice of admirable devotions out of the Popish liturgies, if we take care to separate the good from the bad; if we reject their superstitions, and retain what is truly Christian.—_Bennet’s Paraph. Com. Prayer_, Appendix I.

If it may be concluded that our liturgy is not good because it is comprehended in the mass-book, or in the breviary, we must, by the same reason, infer, that our doctrine is unsound, because it is all to be found in the councils, and in the writings of the doctors of the Romish Church. But so the LORD’S Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, and many sentences of Scripture which are used in that missal, or in that breviary, as also the doctrine of the TRINITY, of the incarnation, passion, &c., which are comprehended in the councils, would all of them be but superstitions and heresies. Again, to say that our liturgy is naught, because it hath been extracted out of the mass-book or breviary, if that were true, yet it is just such an argument, as if men had hit Luther and Calvin in the teeth with this, that they were superstitious, Popish heretics, because they came the one out of a convent from among friars, and the other out of a cathedral from the midst of prebendaries, who were all infected with Popish heresies and superstitions. And would they not have had great cause to complain, if upon this pretence they had been always suspected, rejected, or condemned? Therefore, as they were reputed sound and orthodox in that respect, after their doctrine had been examined, and nothing was found therein of the leaven of Rome, although they came out of her communion, let our liturgy have but the same right done unto it; let it be examined, and that, if they please, with exactness and the greatest rigour; but in consequence let it be also declared innocent, if no harm be found therein, though that should prove true, that it had been wholly taken out of the mass-book, or breviary, which will never be found to be so. For I dare say that among one hundred of them who so confidently affirm it, there is not one that ever saw the missal or the breviary, or but knows so much as what the books are. And if we should put those books into their hands, that they might produce some proofs of this rash affirmation, which is so frequent in their mouths, they would be infinitely puzzled. They would not find, either in the missal, or in the breviary, that wise economy which our liturgy useth in the reading of the Holy Scriptures, nor those excellent passages which set before our eyes the greatness of our guilt towards GOD, and of his mercy in pardoning the same unto us; which passages are placed in the very beginning of it. They would not find there that godly exhortation to repentance, and to the confession of our sins in the presence of GOD, which followeth immediately the reading of those passages. Nor yet the confession of sins, nor the absolution which followeth the same, for there is not one line of all this in the mass-book. The ten commandments are not to be found there, nor that prayer which is made at the end of every commandment which the minister hath pronounced; nor the Commination, nor several prayers of the Litany, or of the other forms. But in it they will meet with the LORD’S Prayer, the Creeds, the songs of Zachary, Simeon, of the Blessed Virgin, and of some others, which are word for word in the Scripture, or are extracted out of it, and are grounded upon the same, and were in use in the primitive Christian Church before ever the mass was hatched. Therefore it is manifest that to say that our liturgy is either the mass, or taken out of it, is a mere slander, proceeding from malice, or ignorance, or both.—_Durel’s Government of the Reformed Churches—Sermon on the English Liturgy._

LOGOS. The WORD; from the Greek ὁ Λόγος. A title given to our blessed LORD and SAVIOUR; so designated not only because the FATHER first created and still governs all things by him, but because, as men discover their sentiments and designs to one another, by the intervention of words, speech, or discourse, so GOD by his SON discovers his gracious designs to men. All the various manifestations of himself, whether in the works of creation, providence, or redemption, all the revelations he has been pleased to give of his will, are conveyed to us through him; and therefore he is, by way of eminence, called the WORD of GOD.—_Tomline._

The word appears to be used as an abstract for the concrete, as St. John employs _Light_ for _enlightener_, _Life_ for _giver of life_; so that the expression means _speaker_, or _interpreter_. So, (John i. 18,) “No man hath seen GOD at any time; the Only Begotten, who is in the bosom of the FATHER, he hath _declared_ him.” In the first verse he is described as the WORD which “was with GOD in the beginning, and was GOD.” (See _Jesus_ and _Lord_.)

As to the reason of this name or title of _the Word_, given by the evangelist to our blessed SAVIOUR; he seems to have done it in compliance with the common way of speaking among the Jews, who frequently call the Messias by the name of the WORD of the LORD; of which I might give many instances; but there is one very remarkable, in the Targum of Jonathan, which renders the words of the psalmist, which the Jews acknowledged to be spoken of the Messias, viz. _The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, &c._, thus, “_The Lord said unto his Word_,” &c. And so likewise Philo the Jew calls him “by whom GOD made the world, the WORD of GOD, and the SON of GOD:” and Plato probably had the same notion from the Jews, which made Amelius, the Platonist, when he read the beginning of St. John’s Gospel, to say, “This barbarian agrees with Plato, ranking the WORD in the order of principles;” meaning, that he made the WORD the principle or efficient cause of the world, as Plato also hath done. And this title of the WORD was so famously known to be given to the MESSIAS, that even the enemies of Christianity took notice of it. Julian the apostate calls CHRIST by this name: and Mahomet in his Alcoran gives this name to JESUS the SON of Mary. But St. John had probably no reference to Plato, any otherwise than as the Gnostics, against whom he wrote, made use of several of Philo’s words and notions. So that in all probability St. John gives our blessed SAVIOUR this title with regard to the Jews more especially, who anciently called MESSIAS by this name.—_Archbishop Tillotson._

See the very learned article on the word Λόγος (under its 16th head) in _Rose’s edition of Parkhurst’s Greek Lexicon_.

LOLLARDS. A religious sect, which arose in Germany about the beginning of the fourteenth century; so called, as many writers have imagined, from Walter Lollard, who began to dogmatize in 1315, and was burnt at Cologne; though others think that Lollard was no surname, but merely a term of reproach applied to all heretics, who concealed the poison of error under the appearance of piety. In England, the followers of Wickliff were called, by way of reproach, _Lollards_, from the supposition that there was some affinity between some of their tenets: though others are of opinion that the English Lollards came from Germany. (See _Wickliffites_.)

LOMBARDICKS. Flat tombstones, generally of granite or alabaster, coffin-shaped, with a slightly raised cross in the centre, and a legend running round it.

LORD, OUR LORD. The LORD JESUS CHRIST is such to us, as He is,

1. Our SAVIOUR.

I will place _salvation_ in Zion. (Isa. xlvi. 13.) Behold thy _salvation_ cometh. (Isa. lxii. 11.) I speak in righteousness, _mighty to save_. (Isa. lxiii. 1.) Thou shalt call his name JESUS, for he shall _save_ his people from their sins. (Matt. i. 21.) The FATHER sent the SON to be _the Saviour of the world_. (1 John iv. 14.) To be a Prince and a _Saviour_. (Acts v. 31.) The author of _eternal salvation_. (Heb. v. 9.) GOD _our Saviour_. (Tit. ii. 10.) The great GOD, and even _our Saviour_ JESUS CHRIST. (Tit. ii. 13.) GOD hath not appointed us to wrath; but to obtain _salvation_ by our LORD CHRIST JESUS. (1 Thess. v. 9.) That the world through him might _be saved_. (John iii. 17.) This is a faithful saying, &c., that JESUS CHRIST came into the world to _save_ sinners. (1 Tim. i. 15.) Neither is there _salvation_ in _any other_; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts iv. 12. See also Matt. i. 21; xviii. 11; Luke ii. 11; John iii. 17; iv. 42; xii. 47; Acts xv. 11; Rom. v. 9; x. 9; Eph. v. 23; Phil. iii. 20; 1 Thess. i. 10; Heb. ii. 3; vii. 25; Tit. iii. 5, 6.)

2. Our Sacrifice for sin.

The Spirit—testified beforehand the _sufferings_ of CHRIST. (1 Pet. i. 11.) Behold _the Lamb of_ GOD, which taketh away (beareth) the sin of the world. (John i. 29.) The _Lamb slain_ from the foundation of the world. (Rev. xiii. 8.) CHRIST our passover is _sacrificed_ (slain) for us. (1 Cor. v. 7.) CHRIST _died for our sins_ according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor. xv. 3.) His own self bare our sins in his _own body_ on the tree. (1 Pet. ii. 24.) And hath given himself for us, an offering and _a sacrifice_ to GOD. (Eph. v. 2.) An offering _for sin_. (Isa. liii. 10.) Once offered to bear the sins of many. (Heb. ix. 28.) Thus it behoved CHRIST to _suffer_. (Luke xxiv. 46.) The just for the unjust, that he might bring us to GOD. (1 Pet. iii. 18.) Hereby perceive we the love of GOD, because he _laid down his life for us_. (1 John iii. 16. See also Isa. liii. 6–12; Dan. ix. 26; Luke xxiv. 26; John iii. 14, 15; xv. 13; Acts iii. 18; xxvi. 23; Rom. iv. 25; 2 Cor. v. 21; Heb. ix. 26; x. 5; 1 John i. 7; ii. 2.)

3. Our Redeemer.

I know that _my Redeemer_ liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. (Job xix. 25.) _The redeemer_ shall come to Zion. (Isa. lix. 20.) CHRIST hath _redeemed_ us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. (Gal. iii. 13.) _Redeemed_ with the precious blood of CHRIST. (1 Pet. i. 18, 19.) Having obtained _eternal redemption_ for us. (Heb. ix. 12. See also Job xxxiii. 23, 24; Matt. xxvi. 28; Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7; Rev. v. 9.)

4. Our Mediator.

There is _one Mediator_ between GOD and man, the man CHRIST JESUS. (1 Tim. ii. 5.) He is _the Mediator_ of a new—a better—covenant. (Heb. viii. 6; xii. 24.) _The Mediator_ of the New Testament. (Heb. ix. 15.) No man cometh to the FATHER but _by me_. (John xiv. 6. See also Job ix. 2; John xvi. 23; Heb. vii. 25; xi. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 5.)

5. Our Advocate.

We have _an advocate_ with the FATHER, JESUS CHRIST the righteous. (1 John ii. 1. See also Heb. ix. 24.)

6. Our Intercessor.

He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was _no Intercessor_; therefore _his arm_ brought salvation. (Isa. lix. 16.) He made _intercession_ for the transgressors. (Isa. liii. 12.) He ever liveth to make _intercession_ for them. (Heb. vii. 25. See also Rom. viii. 34.)

7. Our Propitiation.

He is the _propitiation_ for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John ii. 2.) Whom God hath set forth to be _a propitiation_, through faith in his blood. (Rom. iii. 25.)

8. Our Ransom.

He is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found _a ransom_. (Job xxxiii. 24.) The Son of man came—to give his life _a ransom_ for many. (Matt. xx. 28.) _A ransom_ for all to be testified in due time. (1 Tim. ii. 6.)

9. Our Righteousness.

_Their righteousness_ is of me, saith the LORD. (Isa. liv. 17.) _The righteousness of_ GOD which is in faith by JESUS CHRIST to all. (Rom. iii. 22.) The LORD _our righteousness_. (Jer. xxiii. 6. See also Isa. lxi. 10; Dan. ix. 24; 1 John ii. 1, 29.)

10. Our Wisdom.

CHRIST JESUS, who of GOD is made unto us _wisdom_. (1 Cor. i. 17, 30. See also Isa. ix. 6; Eph. i. 17; iii. 4.)

11. Our Sanctification.

JESUS also, that he might _sanctify the people_ with his own blood, suffered without the gate. (Heb. xiii. 12.) _We_ are _sanctified_ through the offering of the body of JESUS CHRIST. (Heb. x. 10. See also Mal. iii. 3; Matt. iii. 12; John xvii. 19; 1 Cor. i. 2; vi. 11; Eph. v. 25, 26; Heb. x. 14; 1 John i. 7.)

(Of him are ye in CHRIST JESUS, _who_ of GOD is made unto us _wisdom_, and _righteousness_, and _sanctification_, 1 Cor. i. 30.)

12. Our LORD and our GOD.

John xx. 28.

II. As He is,

1. The MESSIAH.

_Messiah_ the prince. (Dan. ix. 25, 26.) We have found _the Messias_, which is, being interpreted, the CHRIST (the anointed). (John i. 41.) Anointed—to preach good tidings unto the meek. (Isa. lxi. 1.) To preach the gospel to the poor, &c. (Luke iv. 18.)

2. The Head of the Church.

Christ is _the Head of the Church_. (Eph. v. 23.) GOD—gave him to be _the head_ over all things to _the Church_, which is his body. (Eph. i. 22, 23. See also Ps. cxviii. 22; Matt. ii. 6; xxi. 42; John x. 14; Acts iv. 11; Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 15; xii. 27; Eph. ii. 20; iv. 12–15; v. 29; Col. i. 18, 24; Heb. iii. 1; xiii. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 6, 25.)

3. The Power of GOD.

Unto them which are called—CHRIST _the power of_ GOD. (1 Cor. i. 24.) Declared to be the SON of GOD _with power_. (Rom. i. 4.) The brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the _word of his power_. (Heb. i. 3.) For in him dwelleth all _the fulness_ of the GODHEAD bodily. (Col. ii. 9. See also Matt. ix. 6; xi. 27; xxviii. 18; Luke iv. 32; Acts xx. 32; Eph. i. 20, 21; Col. ii. 10; 2 Tim. i. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 22; Rev. xi. 15.)

4. The Truth.

_I am the truth._ (John xiv. 6.) Grace and _truth_ came by JESUS CHRIST,—the only begotten of the FATHER, _full_ of grace and _truth_. (John i. 17, 14.) _The Amen_, the faithful and true witness. (Rev. iii. 14. See also Isa. xlii. 3; John viii. 14, 32; xviii. 37; 2 Cor. xi. 10; Eph. iv. 21; 1 John v. 20; Rev. xix. 11; xxii. 6.)

5. The KING of kings, and LORD of lords.

Rev. xvii. 14; xix. 16. And see also Ps. lxxxix. 27; Dan. vii. 14, 27; Zech. xiv. 9; 1 Tim. vi. 15; Rev. i. 5; xi. 15.

6. The LORD of Glory.

1 Cor. ii. 8; Jas. ii. 1.

7. The LORD of All.

JESUS CHRIST, he is LORD of all. (Acts x. 36.) To this end CHRIST both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be LORD both of the _dead and living_. (Rom. xiv. 9.) And that every tongue should confess that JESUS CHRIST is LORD. (Phil. ii. 11. See also Josh. v. 14; Micah v. 2; John xiii. 13; xvi. 15; Acts ii. 36; Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. viii. 6; xii. 5; xv. 47; 2 Thess. i. 7; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Col. iii. 24; Heb. i. 2; ii. 8; xiii. 20; Rev. i. 8; v. 5.)

III. Through Him we have,

1. Grace. (John i. 16; Acts xv. 11; Rom. i. 5; iii. 24; v. 2, 15–21; xvi. 20, and similar passages. 1 Cor. i. 4; xv. 10; 2 Cor. viii. 9; xii. 9; Eph. i. 7; ii. 7; iv. 7; vi. 24; 1 Tim. i. 2, 14; 2 Tim. i. 9; 2 Pet. iii. 18.)

2. Power. (1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. xii. 9; Eph. vi. 8; Phil. iv. 13; Col. i. 29; 1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. i. 9, 12; Heb. ii. 14, 18; xiii. 21.)

3. Faith. (Matt. ix. 2; John vi. 45; Acts xxvi. 18; iii. 16; Rom. iii. 22, 25; v. 2; 1 Cor. iii. 5; Gal. ii. 20; iii. 22; Eph. ii. 8; Phil. i. 29; iii. 9; Col. ii. 5, 7; 1 Tim. iii. 13; iv. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 6; 1 John v. 14.)

4. Forgiveness of sins. (Zech. xiii. 1; Matt. ix. 6; Luke xxiv. 47; John i. 29; Acts ii. 38; v. 31; x. 43; xiii. 38; Rom. viii. 1; 2 Cor. ii. 10; Eph. i. 7; iv. 32; Heb. ix. 26; 1 John ii. 12; Rev. i. 5.)

5. Justification. (Isa. liii. 11; Acts xiii. 39; Rom. iii. 24, 26; iv. 25; v. 1, 9, 16, 18; viii. 1; x. 4; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Gal. ii. 16, 21; iii. 8, 11, 24; Phil. iii. 9; Tit. iii. 7.)

6. Patience. (Ps. xxxvii. 7, with 2 Thess. iii. 5; 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess. i. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 24; Heb. vi. 12; x. 36; xii. 1; James v. 7, 8; Rev. i. 9; ii. 2, 3, 19; iii. 10; xiv. 12.)

7. Light. (Isa. xlix. 6; Luke ii. 32; John i. 9; iii. 19; viii. 12; ix. 5; xii. 35, 36, 46; 2 Cor. iv. 4, 6; Eph. v. 14; 1 John ii. 8; Rev. xxi. 23.)

8. Life. (John i. 4; iii. 36; v. 21, 24; vi. 27, 33, 40; x. 10, 28; xi. 25; xiv. 6; xx. 31; Acts iii. 15; Rom. v. 15–21; vi. 8, 11, 23; viii. 2; xiv. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 2 Cor. iv. 10; Phil. i. 21; Col. iii. 4; 1 Thess. v. 10; 2 Tim. i. 1, 10; 1 John i. 1; ii. 25; iv. 9; v. 11, 12, 20; Jude, ver. 21.)

9. Peace. (Isa. ix. 6; Ezek. xxxiv. 25; Zech. ix. 10; Luke i. 79; ii. 14; xix. 38; John xiv. 27; xvi. 33; Acts x. 36; Rom. i. 7, and the similar passages, and v. 1; x. 15; Eph. ii. 14–17; vi. 15; Phil. iv. 7; Col. i. 20; 1 Pet. v. 14.)

10. Blessing. (Gal. iii. 14; Eph. i. 3; 2 Tim. iv. 22.)

11. All we need. (Ps. xxiii. 1; John xv. 7, 16; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Phil. iv. 19.)

12. Joy and consolation. (Luke ii. 25; John xvi. 20; Rom. v. 11; xv. 13; 2 Cor. i. 5; Phil. ii. 1; iii. 1; iv. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 16.)

13. Victory. (Rom. viii. 37; 1 Cor. xv. 57; 2 Cor. ii. 14; 1 John iv. 4; v. 4, 5; Rev. xii. 11.)

14. The kingdom of heaven. (Luke xxii. 28, 29; John xiv. 3; Eph. ii. 6; v. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12; iv. 8; 2 Pet. i. 11; Rev. iii. 21; xxi. 22.)

IV. Through Him we are,

1. Reconciled to GOD. (Dan. ix. 24; John xi. 52; Rom. v. 1, 10; xi. 15; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19; Eph. i. 10; ii. 13, 16; iii. 6; Col. i. 20, 21; Heb. ii. 17; 1 John iv. 10.)

2. Made sons of GOD. (Isa. lvi. 5; Luke xii. 32; John i. 12; Gal. iii. 26; iv. 5–7; Eph. i. 5; 1 John iii. 1.)

V. Through Him we must,

1. Offer thanks. (Rom. i. 8; vii. 25; Eph. i. 6; v. 20; Col. iii. 17; 1 Thess. v. 18; Heb. xiii. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 5.)

2. Give glory to GOD. (John xiv. 13; Rom. xvi. 27; 2 Cor. viii. 23; Eph. iii. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 11.)

3. Be accepted. (Eph. i. 6.)

VI. In Him we must,

1. Have faith. (Isa. xxviii. 16; John i. 12; iii. 16; vi. 29, 47; xx. 31; Acts xvi. 31; xviii. 8; xx. 21; xxiv. 24; Rom. ix. 33; x. 9; Gal. ii. 16; Eph. ii. 8; Phil. i. 29; 2 Tim. i. 13; 1 John ii. 22; iii. 23; v. 1, 10.)

2. Hope. (Acts xxviii. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 19; Col. i. 27; 1 Tim. i. 1.)

3. Trust. (2 Cor. i. 20; iii. 4; xi. 10; Eph. i. 12.)

4. Die. (Rom. vii. 4; viii. 10, 36; 1 Cor. iv. 9; ix. 15; xv. 31; 2 Cor. i. 5; iv. 10, 11; vi. 9; Phil. ii. 30.)

5. Become new creatures. (2 Cor. iv. 16; v. 17; Gal. vi. 15.)

6. Have our conversation. (John xv. 16, 22; Rom. vi. 4; viii. 9; xiii. 14; 1 Cor. iii. 23; 2 Cor. iv. 10; xiii. 5; Gal. i. 10; ii. 17; v. 24; Eph. iii. 19; iv. 15; vi. 6; Phil. i. 10, 11, 27; ii. 5, 21; iii. 18; Col. i. 10; ii. 6; iii. 1, 16; 1 Thess. ii. 11, 12; iv. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 1–3, 19; Tit. ii. 10; Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. iii. 16; Rev. vii. 14.)

VII. In His name,

1. We are exhorted. (1 Cor. i. 10; iii. 1; v. 4; 1 Thess. iv. 1, 2; 1 Tim. v. 21; vi. 13; 2 Tim. iv. 1.)

2. We must speak. (Rom. ix. 1, 2; 2 Cor. ii. 17; xii. 19; 1 Tim. ii. 7.)

3. We must ask. (Matt. xviii. 19, 20; John xiv. 13; xv. 7; xvi. 23, 24; 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9; 1 John v. 14, 15.)

VIII. We must,

1. Acknowledge His power. (Isa. lxiii. 1–6; John v. 23; Rom. xiv. 11; Phil. ii. 10, 11; Rev. v. 13.)

2. Confess His name. (Matt. x. 32; Luke xii. 8, 9; Acts viii. 37; Phil. ii. 11; 1 John iv. 15; 2 John, ver. 7; Rev. ii. 13; iii. 8.)

3. And in His name do all things. (Eph. vi. 7; Col. iii. 17, 23.)

IX. In Him we are united.

Rom. viii. 17, 39; xii. 5; xvi. 7, 9–13; 1 Cor. i. 13; iii. 1; vi. 15; vii. 22; x. 17; xii. 13, 20, 27; 2 Cor. xii. 2; Gal. i. 22; iii. 27, 28; Eph. i. 10, 22, 23; ii. 14, 16, 21; iii. 6; iv. 12, 16, 20, 25; v. 30; Col. i. 18, 24; 1 Thess. iv. 16; Heb. iii. 14; 1 John i. 3; v. 20.

X. For Him we must suffer.

Matt. v. 11, 12; xvi. 24; Acts xiv. 22; Rom. v. 3; viii. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 9; 2 Cor. i. 5; iv. 10; vi. 10; vii. 4; xii. 10; Gal. ii. 20; Phil. i. 12; iii. 8; Col i. 24; 1 Thess. iii. 3; 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12; iii. 12; Heb. x. 34; xi. 26; xiii. 13; James i. 2; 1 Pet. i. 6; ii. 21; iv. 13, 14, 16; Rev. i. 9; ii. 3.

XI. He judgeth all things.

John v. 22; Acts xvii. 31; Rom. ii. 16; xiv. 10; 1 Cor. iv. 5; 2 Cor. v. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 5; Jude, ver. 14, 15; Rev. xx. 12.

LORD’S DAY. The first day of the week is so designated in the Christian Church;—it is the κυριακὴ ἡμέρα of St. John and Ignatius (see _Schleusner_ in voc.);—and as Friday is appointed as the weekly fast, in commemoration of our LORD’S crucifixion, so is Sunday the weekly feast, in commemoration of his resurrection.

GOD has commanded us to dedicate _at least_ a seventh portion of our time to him. We read in Genesis, (ii. 3,) that GOD blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. Here we are told that the seventh day, or as we shall presently show, one day in seven, was not only blessed, but sanctified by GOD. Now, by sanctifying a thing or person, we understand their being separated or set apart for a religious purpose. When therefore the ALMIGHTY is said to sanctify a portion of time, it cannot be in reference to himself, to whom all days, times, and seasons are alike—equally pure, equally holy,—but in reference to man; and the sanctifying a day must, consequently, imply a command to man to keep it holy. That one day in seven was from the beginning dedicated to the service of the ALMIGHTY, will receive confirmation by reference to the chapter which immediately follows that from which the quotation just made is taken. For there we are told that Cain and his brother Abel made a sacrifice,—not “in the process of time” merely,—but, as it is given in the margin of our Bibles, “at the end of the days.” The latter reading we prefer, because, while the former conveys but an indistinct idea to the mind, the latter is confirmed by one of the oldest versions of Scripture, called the Septuagint. But if to this expression,—“at the end of the days,” we attach any meaning at all, it must surely signify at the end of the six days of labour, that is, on the seventh day, previously sanctified by the ALMIGHTY. When, in addition to this, we take into consideration the evil character of Cain, it seems less probable that he should have come voluntarily forward, with a grateful heart, to worship his Maker, than that he carelessly complied with a custom to which he had been habituated from his childhood: he came to _sacrifice_, as some come now to _Church_, after each interval of six days, from habit rather than piety.

We have also another corroborating evidence in favour of this interpretation of our text. Holy Job is generally supposed to have lived before the time of Moses; and in the Book of Job we find mention made of “the day on which the sons of GOD came to present themselves unto the LORD,” _which we may fairly conclude alludes to the sabbath_. It is remarkable, also, that we find some traces of this institution among the heathen, for two of their oldest poets, Homer and Hesiod, speak of the seventh as being a sacred day. It is probable that in the same manner in which they obtained the notion of a Deity, namely, by tradition from father to son of a revelation made to Adam and Noah, they arrived at a knowledge which gradually died away, of this sacredness of the seventh day.

But when we remember that this rule was given to Adam, and was, in consequence, binding, _not_ upon a chosen few, but upon all his descendants, it does not appear likely that any one particular day was designated, but merely that a general rule was laid down that one day in seven should be dedicated to direct offices of religious duties; for it would have been impossible for men, scattered, as they were soon to be, over all the face of the earth, to observe, all of them, the _same_ day, since the beginning of every day, and of course of the seventh, must have been eighteen hours later in some parts of the world than in Eden or Palestine, or wherever we suppose the sabbath to have been first established. A law for a single nation may be particular; a law for all mankind must be general: the principle must be laid down and enforced; the particulars must depend upon circumstances. Besides, although it is easy to demonstrate that the Israelites ought to have set apart for their religious duties one day in seven, previously to the ceremonial institution of the sabbath on Mount Sinai, yet it is equally clear that they did not keep the same day _before_ the delivery of the law, as they did afterwards. For although in the 16th chapter of Exodus, _previously_ to the delivery of the law, the sabbath is spoken of as an institution well known to the Israelites, yet as to the particular day on which it was kept there is no mention made. It was not till AFTERWARDS that _one certain particular_ day was appointed, (namely, _that_ on which they came out of Egypt,) for the two-fold purpose, that _as men_ they might commemorate the creation, and _as Israelites_ celebrate their deliverance. Now we may reasonably infer that they would not have set out from Egypt on the sabbath day, and that consequently their sabbath was not observed at the same time _before_, as it was _after_, its re-institution on Mount Sinai.

That we, then, together with every human being, are bound to dedicate one day in seven to religious duties, is evident, because the commandment was given, not to Moses, but to Adam; not to the Israelites, but to all the descendants of Eve. But the observance of _that one particular_ day sanctified to the Jews, not only to celebrate the universal love of GOD in the creation of the world, but his special loving-kindness to their individual nation, is not any longer obligatory upon us, because it formed part of the ceremonial law. It remains, therefore, now to inquire on what authority it is that we observe the _first_ day of the week in preference to any other, or, in other words, by whom the festival of the LORD’S day was instituted.

That we in the present age keep the first day of the week as a holy-day dedicated to the service of our MAKER and REDEEMER is certain; the question is, whether this was an arbitrary innovation, introduced when our Church was corrupted by Popery, and retained at its reformation as a useful institution, or whether it has higher claims to our respect. It is _not_ a Popish innovation or novelty, because we find it mentioned by our great divines in those primitive and purer ages of our Church, before Popery or any of its doctrines were invented or dreamt of. For, in examining such writers as lived in the age of the apostles, or those immediately succeeding, we find them alluding to the fact, (and their testimony is confirmed by contemporary and infidel historians,) that Christians were _always_ accustomed to meet on the first day of the week for the performance of their religious exercises. If we examine them more minutely, we find that, as the Jewish sabbath was fixed to a certain day, on account of their deliverance from Pharaoh, so the Christians kept this festival in grateful acknowledgment of the mercies of the REDEEMER, who, as on this day, accomplished the victory over the grave, by rising from the dead. If we attend them yet further, we find those who, too honest to deceive, lived too near the apostolic age to be deceived, asserting that this festival was instituted by the apostles; and if by the apostles, who acted under the immediate direction and influence of the HOLY GHOST, then of course we may conclude that the institution was Divine.

Having thus far shown what the tradition is, let us now consult our Bibles, to ascertain whether it be confirmed or contradicted, for without this it will be of no avail. Now, that the gospel does not _expressly_ command the religious observance of the first day in the week must be conceded. The apostles and Jewish Christians do not appear to have neglected the Jewish sabbath. As long as the temple continued standing, they kept the last day of the week as a fast; the first, as a festival. That the apostles did keep the first day of the week as a festival, is quite clear. St. Paul, we are told, preached at Troas, “on the first day of the week.” When all the disciples had, as they were in the habit of doing, “come together to break bread,” that is, to receive the holy eucharist, which ought always to form a part of the public service, he gave orders also to the Corinthians to make a collection for the saints at Jerusalem, when, according to their custom, they assembled together on the first day of the week, which day is expressly called by St. John the LORD’S day. (Rev. i. 10.) But if the testimony of _man_ is great, the testimony of GOD is greater. Their observance of this festival was sanctioned by our LORD himself, by his repeated appearance among his apostles on that day; after his resurrection it is sanctioned by the HOLY GHOST, by the miraculous effusion of the SPIRIT upon the apostles when they were together on the day of Pentecost, which must, that year, have fallen upon the first day of the week. Now, take these facts of Scripture (and others may be found) and compare them with the universal tradition to which we have alluded, and surely we must agree with one of the most celebrated divines who have appeared in modern times, when speaking of the most important doctrine of our religion, that of the Trinity, “if what appears _probably_ to be taught in Scripture appears _certainly_ to have been taught in the primitive and Catholic Church, such probability, so strengthened, carries with it the force of demonstration.”

We may perceive from this, that our practice of keeping holy the first day of the week is sanctioned by the apostles. What is our authority, if we _except_ the high authority of the Church, for not observing the last day of the week _also_, it were hard to say. But if the authority of the Church is to be received, we must remember that what she teaches is, that we are to dedicate _at least_ a seventh portion of our time to GOD. But this we do not do, unless every moment of the Sunday is so devoted. And yet who can do this? Therefore the Church also requires of us a portion of Friday, and a portion of the saints’ days.

LORD’S PRAYER. The prayer which our blessed LORD himself hath taught us. It is to be used as a model for all our devotions, our blessed LORD saying, (Matt. vi. 9,) “_After this manner_ pray ye;” and it is to be used in express words _whenever_ we pray, our LORD commanding us, (Luke xi. 2,) “When ye pray, say, Our FATHER,” &c. Therefore the Church of CHRIST hath used from the first to begin and end her services with the LORD’S Prayer. This being the foundation upon which all other prayers should be built, therefore, saith Tertullian, we begin with it, that so, the right foundation being laid, we may justly proceed to our ensuing requests. And it being the perfection of all prayer, therefore, saith St. Augustine, we conclude our prayers with it. Let no man, therefore, quarrel with the Church’s frequent use of the LORD’S Prayer, for the Catholic Church ever did the same. Besides, as St. Cyprian observes, if we would hope to have our prayers accepted of the FATHER only for his SON’S sake, why should we not hope to have them most speedily accepted when they are offered up in his SON’S own words?

It is objected by some persons in the present day, (for the objection was unknown to the primitive Church,) that our SAVIOUR did not give this as an express _form of prayer_, but only as a pattern, or direction. In support of this they quote the passage, Matt. vi. 9, &c., in which it is introduced, “After this manner pray ye;” not laying so much stress on the similar passage, Luke xi. 2, &c., where our _Saviour_ expressly says, “When ye pray, say.” On this it may be remarked, that where there are two texts on any particular doctrine, or practice, the one worded ambiguously, as in that of St. Matthew, “After this manner,” &c., (or as the translation would more properly be, “Pray _thus_,” and the ambiguity would then almost vanish,) and the other clearly expressed; as in that of St. Luke, “When ye pray, say,” it is a settled and a natural rule of interpretation, that the doubtful words should be explained by those which are clear. Now he who uses these very words as a form, acts in evident obedience to both the letter and the spirit of the one precept, and yet not in contradiction to the other. But he who rejects this as a form, though he may act in obedience to the spirit of the one, certainly acts in disobedience to the letter, if not to the spirit of the other, “When ye pray, say,” &c.

Had not our LORD given this as a settled form of prayer, he would have been very likely to have dilated somewhat on the various subjects it embraces—of adoration, prayer, and praise: and perhaps have introduced illustrations according to his custom; and would not improbably have said, “When ye pray, address yourselves in the first place to GOD who is your heavenly FATHER, but forget not his sovereignty, and ask him to give you,” &c. But instead of this he dictates, in both cases, a few comprehensive sentences, convenient for all persons, and under all circumstances, and of which the eloquent Tertullian thus rapturously exclaims, “In this compendium of few words, how many declarations of prophets, evangelists, and apostles are contained! How many discourses, parables, examples, precepts of our LORD! How many duties towards GOD are briefly expressed! Honour to the FATHER, faith, profession in his name, offering of obedience in his will, expression of hope in his kingdom; petition for the necessaries of life in the bread, confession of sins in the supplication, solicitation against temptations in the asking of protection. What wonder! GOD alone could teach how he chose to be prayed to.” St. Cyprian says, that “it is so copious in spiritual virtue, that there is nothing omitted in all our prayers and petitions which is not comprehended in this epitome of heavenly doctrine.”

It is necessary to be understood that the transactions mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Luke were not one and the same, but occurred at different times, and on different occasions. Our LORD first introduced this form of prayer uncalled for, in the sermon on the mount, at the commencement of his commission, comprehending a doxology, or concluding tribute of glory and praise. But he gave it for the second time, after an interval of about two years and a half, as is clear from the various events that occurred, and that are enumerated in the chapters (Luke vii.–xi.) which form the greater part of the acts of his ministry.

It is not impossible that the disciples themselves did, on the first occasion, regard it as conveying a general idea only in what terms GOD should be addressed, and therefore not having used it as a common prayer, the circumstance of our LORD’S “praying in a certain place” induced one of his disciples, “when he ceased,” to say, “LORD, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples;” alluding to a well-known custom of the Hebrew masters, which it thus appears John had adopted, of teaching their scholars a particular form of words in their addresses to GOD, varying, no doubt, according to their particular sentiments. Our LORD’S disciples here, therefore, ask of him a precise form, and that form he gives them in compliance with their wishes, not only for their use, but for the use of all who should embrace the profession of Christianity—“When ye pray, say,” &c.

It is supposed by some, and there seems much reason for the idea, that the disciple who thus asked was a new convert, and not present at the delivery of the sermon on the mount, and that our LORD repeated the form which he had then before given. Indeed, if that which was first given had not been considered as a settled form, or a groundwork for it, it would appear extraordinary that it should be repeated in so nearly the same words, and precisely in the same order of sentences. Grotius remarks on this subject, that so averse was our LORD, the LORD of the Church, (_tam longe abfuit ipse Dominus ecclesiæ_,) to unnecessary innovation, and an affectation of novelty, that he “who had not the SPIRIT by measure,” but “in whom were all the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” selected the words and phrases in a great degree from forms of prayer then well known among the Jew; as in his doctrines he also made use of proverbs and sayings well understood in that age.

The difference between the form given in the sermon on the mount and on that second occasion is, that to the latter he does not affix the doxology, which many indeed suppose to be an interpolation; leaving this perhaps to be added according to the occasion and to the zeal of the worshipper. It cannot be imagined that either the disciples of our LORD, or of John, had hitherto neglected the duty of prayer, or that they performed it in an uncertain or disorderly manner, as they had set forms and hours of prayer, which all the devout Jews observed; it seems therefore obvious that a particular form is alluded to in the case of both, and the request to our LORD was made in pursuance of his encouraging direction, “Ask, and ye shall have,” and was gratified by him in compliance with the reasonable and well-known existing custom. “Thus,” as the learned Mede says on this subject, (see his discourse on Matt. vi. 9,) “their inadvertency” (in not understanding it the first time as a form) “becomes our confirmation. For, as Joseph said to Pharaoh, ‘the dream is doubled unto Pharaoh, because the thing is established by GOD,’ (Gen. xli. 32,) so may we say here, the delivery of this prayer was doubled unto the disciples, that they and we might thereby know the more certainly that our SAVIOUR, intended and commended it unto his Church for a set form of prayer.”

Our blessed LORD appears afterwards to refer to the custom now adopted by his disciples, and the well-known forms used, when he says, “And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any: that your FATHER also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses” (Mark