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

xi. 25); thus pointedly referring to two of its principal features,

couched too in the same words. The apostle St. Peter seems to make the

same allusion when he says, “If ye call on the FATHER,” &c. (1 Pet. i.

17.)

Some have argued that this prayer is to be considered as temporary only,

and not of perpetual obligation, because we do not in it ask in the name

of CHRIST, according to his direction; but a transaction may be opposed

to this, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, (iv. 24,) in which it is

seen, unless the apostles and disciples had so quickly forgotten the

direction of their LORD, that prayers may be considered as offered up in

the name of CHRIST, though addressed to GOD; for there the disciples, on

the liberation of Peter and John by the Jewish council, lift up their

voice and say, “LORD, thou art GOD, which hast made heaven and earth,

and the sea, and all that in them is;” and they mention CHRIST as his

holy child JESUS. In our addresses to GOD, our heavenly FATHER, we

cannot forget him through whom we have access as to a father, being

“joint-heirs with him.”

Another objection is made, that it does not appear in Scripture that the

apostles used this prayer; but to this it may be remarked, that neither

does it appear they used any other form, and yet some form of words must

have been generally known and used by them, or how could “they lift up

their voice with one accord.” (Acts iv. 24; i. 14.)

Bishop Jeremy Taylor justly says, “That the apostles did use the prayer

their LORD taught them, I think need not much to be questioned; they

could have no other end of their desire; and it had been a strange

boldness to ask for a form which they intended not to use, or a strange

levity not to do what they intended.”

The learned Bingham observes, that if there were no other argument to

prove the lawfulness of set forms of prayer in the judgment of the

ancients, the opinion which they had of the LORD’S Prayer, and their

practice pursuant to this opinion, would sufficiently do it; and he

remarks that they unequivocally looked upon it as a settled form: for

Tertullian says expressly that “our LORD prescribed a new form of prayer

for the new disciples of the New Testament, and that though John had

taught his disciples a form, yet that he did this only as a forerunner

of CHRIST, so that when CHRIST was increased, (‘he must increase, but I

must decrease,’) then the work of the servant passed over to the LORD.

Thus the prayer of John is lost, while that of our LORD remains, that

earthly things may give way to heavenly.”

In similar terms speaks Irenæus, (who had himself heard Polycarp, the

disciple of St. John,) Origen, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Cyril, St.

Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine. The last says expressly, that

as the Church always used this prayer, she did it at the commandment of

CHRIST. “He said to his disciples—he said to his apostles and to us,

pray thus.” St. Chrysostom refers continually to the LORD’S Prayer, as

in common use among them by the express commandment of CHRIST, and

observes, “that the FATHER well knows the words and meaning of his SON.”

St. Cyprian says, “Let the FATHER recognise in your prayers the words of

the SON;” and he considers it as a peculiar instance of mercy, “that he

who made us taught us how to pray; that whilst we speak unto the FATHER

in that prayer and address which the SON taught us, we may the more

easily be heard.” He adds, “Since we have an Advocate with the FATHER

for our sins, we should, whenever we pray for pardon, allege unto GOD

the very words which our Advocate has taught us. We have his promise,

that whatever we shall ask in his name we shall receive: and must we not

more readily obtain our desires, when we not only use his name in

asking, but in his very words, present our request unto GOD. Our

Advocate in heaven has taught us to say this prayer upon earth, that

between his intercession and our supplications the most perfect harmony

may subsist.” The judicious Hooker observes, that “should men speak with

the tongues of angels, yet words so pleasing to the ears of GOD, as

those which the SON of GOD himself has composed, it were not possible

for man to frame.”

There was, indeed, hardly any office in the primitive Church in which

the celebration of this prayer did not make a solemn part; so that at

length it was called the _Oratio quotidiana_, the daily, the common

prayer; the _Oratio legitima_ the established prayer, or the prayer of

the Christian law; the “epitome of the gospel:” and St. Augustine even

terms it, “the daily baptism,” and a “daily purification,” “for,” says

he, “we are absolved once by baptism, but by this prayer daily.” When in

succeeding ages some of the clergy in Spain occasionally omitted it in

the daily service, they were censured by a council, as “proud contemners

of the LORD’S injunction; and it was enacted, that every clergyman

omitting it either in private or public prayer should be degraded from

the dignity of his office.” It is worthy of remark, that the heathen

writer Lucian, nearly contemporary with the apostles, makes a Christian,

in one of his dialogues, speak of the prayer which began, “Our FATHER.”

The early Fathers were even of opinion, that the making use of this

prayer was of vast efficacy to incline GOD to pardon sins of infirmity,

especially those committed through want of fervour and sufficient

attention in our other prayers. “As for our daily and slight sins,” says

St. Augustine, “without which no one can live, the daily prayer will be

accepted by GOD for pardon of them;” and the fourth Council of Toledo

enjoins it for this among other reasons. This doctrine the Papists

afterwards perverted, by their distinction of sins into venial and

mortal, and by the pure _opus operatum_ of repeating the LORD’S Prayer.

Of this abuse there is happily no shadow in the present service of our

Church, our reformers having wholly rejected and abolished the technical

repetition of it (the _Paternoster_) with chaplets and rosaries, to

which truly “vain repetitions” the Church of Rome had annexed

indulgences.

In conclusion, in whatever else the various liturgies differ, they all

agree in the constant and frequent use of this prayer. Dr. Featly says,

“the reformed Churches generally conclude their prayers before sermon

with the LORD’S Prayer, partly in opposition to the Papists, who close

up their devotions with an _Ave Maria_, partly to supply all the defects

and imperfections of their own.” And the learned Bingham pointedly

declares, “I dare undertake to prove, that for 1500 years together, none

ever disliked the use of the LORD’S Prayer, but only the Pelagians; and

they did not wholly reject the use of it neither, nor dislike it because

it was a form, but for another reason, because it contradicted one of

their principal tenets, which was, that some men were so perfect in this

world, that they needed not to pray to GOD for the forgiveness of their

own sins, but only for those of others.”

For these reasons we cannot but protest against the conclusion of the

following paragraph taken from the works of Mr. Boston, a man of

exemplary piety, but, as it would seem, of strong prejudices: “From the

whole, I think it is evident, that a prayer formed upon the model of

this excellent pattern, having the substance of the several petitions

interspersed through it, though expressed in other words, is a true

Scriptural prayer” (granted, it must be so); “and that there is no

necessity to conclude with the LORD’S Prayer” (this is less certain).

“And, therefore, I cannot but think that Papists, and many Protestants

who conclude their prayers with the very words of the LORD’S Prayer,

make a very superstitious use of it, causing people to imagine that the

bare recital of the words of the LORD’S Prayer sanctifies their other

prayers; and that no prayer can be accepted of GOD where this, I cannot

but call it vain, repetition is omitted.” It is confidently hoped that,

if what is collected in the present article be perused with attention,

the members of the Church of England will be led to exclaim, “We ‘have

not so learned CHRIST.’”

_The_ LORD’S _Prayer is to be said with an audible voice_.—It was an

ancient custom for the priest to say some parts of the liturgy

internally, (_secreto_, ἐν ἑαυτῷ, or μυστικῶς,) in an unintelligible

whisper; and in some instances the people joined in this manner, as was

the case with respect to the LORD’S Prayer and the creed. This

unreasonable practice was put an end to at the Reformation, and the

LORD’S Prayer in particular was directed to be said “with an audible

voice,” “with a loud voice;” probably that the people might sooner learn

this most essential prayer; a practice from which the ignorant may even

now find benefit.

The flaming ardency of the seven spirits, and of all the heavenly choir,

appears in the intenseness and loudness of their songs, “To him all

angels cry aloud!” They do not breathe out faint or forced hallelujahs;

their songs resemble, as St. John describes them, “the voice of many

waters,” and “the voice of mighty thunderings.” (Rev. xix. 6.) But where

are the least tokens of this seraphic ardency in our worship here on

earth? The sacrifice of this our public service, like Elijah’s, is put

in excellent order, but we ourselves “put no fire under!” On the

contrary, a voluntary coldness runs through all the parts and offices of

it, like the water poured on by Elijah, which “ran round the altar and

filled all the trenches.” And it is next to a miracle if God accepts

such cold offerings, or answers us from heaven, unless with the fire,

not of acceptance, but of vengeance.—_Bisse on the Lord’s Prayer._

_The people are to repeat it with the priest._—When the LORD’S Prayer

was directed to be said with an audible voice, it was, in the Romish

Church, said by the priest alone; but in the Greek and ancient Gallican

Churches, by the priest and people together—a custom which the Church of

England has adopted in preference to the Roman. Until the review of

1661, the minister began the prayer, and went through it alone to the

conclusion of the last petition, “but deliver us from evil,” which the

people said; in order, as Bishop Sparrow remarks, that they might not be

interrupted from bearing a part in so divine a prayer. In a rubric in

the Communion Service, near the conclusion, the manner in which the

LORD’S Prayer should be used is clearly laid down. “Then shall the

priest say the LORD’S Prayer, the people repeating after him every

petition.”

In none of the successive editions of the Prayer Book till the last

review, was there any direction for the people prefixed to the first

occurrence of the LORD’S Prayer. In King Edward’s First Book at its

second recurrence, after the creed, the latter clause, “but deliver us

from evil,” was inserted. This was altered in the Second Book of King

Edward; and the direction, “Then the minister, clerks, and people,” &c.,

inserted, as we have it now. In the Litany, the two last clauses were

marked as verse and response, till the last review. In the Communion no

direction was given for the people;—at its second occurrence, the verse

and response were marked, as in the Litany: but in the Second Book, the

people were directed to repeat after him every petition, as now. The

Scotch Prayer Book (temp. K. Chas. I.) first inserted the doxology, at

both its occurrence in Morning and Evening Prayer, and at its last in

the Communion. At the last review the doxology was inserted at its first

occurrence in the Morning and Evening Prayer, and at the end of the

Communion; and the versicular arrangement in the Litany was altered. The

notation of the verse and response, with their proper cadences, is

retained in the old choral manuals.

Wheatly remarks that “the doxology was appointed by the last review to

be used in this place, partly, he supposes, because many copies of St.

Matthew have it, and the Greek Fathers expound it; and partly because

the office here is a matter of praise, it being used immediately after

the absolution.” And again, in the Post Communion, “the doxology is here

annexed, because all these devotions are designed for an act of praise,

for the benefits received in the holy sacrament.” And in the Churching

of Women, “the doxology was added to the LORD’S Prayer at the last

review, by reason of its being an office of thanksgiving.”

In the Romish service, except in the Mass, the priest speaks the words,

“_Et ne nos_,” &c., “Lead us not into temptation,” in a peculiar tone of

voice, by which the people are apprized of its being the time for them

to answer, “But deliver us from evil.” This also is a custom at the end

of every prayer, that the people may know when to say “Amen.” In the

Mosarabic liturgy the priest says the prayer by himself, and the people

answer “Amen” to each petition.

The catechumens and the energumens, or those possessed with evil

spirits, were not suffered in the primitive Church to join in the

tremendous cry sent up by the people, but only bowed their heads in

token of assent.

It may be observed that the several paragraphs of the LORD’S Prayer are

made to begin, in our Church Prayer Book, with a capital letter, in

order, most probably, to mark accurately the places where the people

should take up their parts; and this method is adopted in the confession

in the daily service, in the creeds, the _Gloria in excelsis_, in the

Communion Service, and in the confession and deprecation in the

Commination Service on Ash Wednesday.

But it must likewise be observed, that this method does not seem to be

so closely followed in the Cambridge as in the Oxford books, the former

combining the fourth and fifth paragraphs, the seventh and eighth, and

the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth in the LORD’S Prayer; and yet in

these copies the word “and” is retained before “the power,” &c., but

dropped in the latter.

To make this matter clear, however, we subjoin the prayer as printed and

pointed in the sealed books, at the beginning of Morning and Evening

Prayer.

Our Father, which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy Kingdom come.

Thy will be done in Earth, As it is in Heaven. Give us this day our

daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them, that

trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; But deliver us

from evil: For thine is the Kingdom, the Power, And the Glory, For ever

and ever. Amen.

Here _and_ before _the Power_ is, in all the collated copies of sealed

books, crossed out with a pen, both in the Morning and Evening Prayer.

In the Post Communion Service, there is some difference of punctuation

and of type: e.g.

Our Father which art in heaven; Hallowed be thy Name. Thy Kingdom come.

Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our

daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that

trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation: But deliver us

from evil. For thine is the kingdom, The power and the glory, For ever

and ever. Amen.

Here _and_ was never inserted before _The power_.

After the Creed, the punctuation is as in the first specimen, except a

colon after _temptation_, and a full stop with “Amen” after _evil_.

_Heaven_ and _Earth_ do not begin with capitals. The same in the Litany,

except there is a semicolon after _temptation_. At its first occurrence

in the Communion, the punctuation, &c. is the same as in the Post

Communion, except that there is a comma after _temptation_. A full stop

and “Amen” after _evil_.

Demosthenes said, when he was reproved for studying his orations, that

it argued his reverence for the people of Athens. So doth our study, in

making exact forms, declare our esteem for Almighty GOD.—_Comber._ And

we have this sacred form from the Wonderful Counsellor, who came out of

the bosom of his FATHER, and knew his treasures, as well as our wants;

he best could inform us what was fit for us to ask, and what most likely

for him to grant: he was to go to heaven to be our advocate there, and

he hath taught us to use this here, that there may be a harmony between

our requests and his. For which cause it ought to be united to all our

offices to make up their defects, and recommend them to “Our heavenly

FATHER,” who cannot deny us when we speak the very same words which his

dear SON hath put in our mouths, if we use them with understanding and

devotion.—_Ibid._

LORD’S SUPPER. An ancient name for the sacrament of the holy eucharist.

The name occurs in 1 Cor. xi. 20; but in that passage it is generally

supposed by the most learned divines, that reference is made to the

love-feast, kept in imitation of our LORD’S last supper, which was

previous to the original eucharist. Thus much, however, says Dr.

Waterland, is certain, that in the apostolical times the love-feast and

the eucharist, though distinct, went together, and were nearly allied to

each other, and were both of them celebrated at one meeting. (See

_Eucharist_, _Agapæ_, and _Communion_.)

As by the sacrament of baptism we enter into the Christian covenant, so

by that of the LORD’S supper we profess our thankful continuance in it:

and therefore the first answer of our catechism concerning this

ordinance tells us, that it was appointed “for the continual remembrance

of the sacrifice of the death of CHRIST, and of the benefits which we

receive thereby.”—_Abp. Secker._

It is called the LORD’S supper because it was both instituted by our

LORD at supper, and was designed to succeed into the place of the

paschal supper of the Jews. (Matt. xxvi. 26, &c.; Mark xiv. 22; 1 Cor.

xi. 23–25, &c.)—_Abp. Wake._

LORD’S TABLE. One of the names given to the altar in Christian churches.

(See _Altar_.)

LOUD VOICE. A term in our liturgy which may be considered technical; as

not merely meaning _audible_, (though this expression is also used,) but

as being a contradistinction to the _secretò_ of the unreformed service,

and the _mystic_ voice (μυστικῶς) of the Greek Church: certain prayers

and part of the service having been repeated in an inaudible whisper.

(See _Secretò_, and _Mystic Voice_, also _Lord’s Prayer_.)

LOVE-FEASTS. (See _Agapæ_.) Feasts held in the apostolic age before the

celebration of the eucharist, and discontinued on account of the abuse

of them.

LOVE, THE FAMILY OF. A sect of enthusiasts, which arose in Holland, and

being propagated across the Channel, appeared in England about the year

1580.

These sectaries pretended to a more than ordinary sanctity, which gained

upon the affections of the common people. They affirmed, that none were

of the number of the elect, but such as were admitted into their family,

and that all the rest were reprobate, and consigned over to eternal

damnation. They held, likewise, that it was lawful for them to swear to

an untruth before a magistrate, for their own convenience, or before any

person, who was not of their society. In order to propagate their

opinions, they dispersed books, translated out of Dutch into English,

entitled, _The Gospel of the Kingdom_. _Documental Sentences._ _The

Prophecy of the Spirit of Love._ _The Publishing of Peace upon Earth,

&c._

These _Familists_ could by no means be prevailed upon to discover their

author: nevertheless it was afterwards found to be Henry Nicholas of

Leyden, who blasphemously pretended that he partook of the Divinity of

GOD, and GOD of his humanity. Queen Elizabeth issued a proclamation

against these impious sectaries, and ordered their books to be publicly

burnt.

LOW SUNDAY. Upon the octave of the first Sunday after Easter day, it was

the custom of the ancients to repeat some part of the solemnity which

was used upon Easter day; whence this Sunday took the name of Low

Sunday, being celebrated as a feast, though of a lower degree than

Easter day itself.