Chapter XLVI: Act 46: , Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do (22)

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.