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 ofGodcame to present themselves unto theLord,”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,notupon 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, thesameday, 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 daybeforethe delivery of the law, as they did afterwards. For although in the 16th chapter of Exodus,previouslyto 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 tillAFTERWARDSthatone certain particularday was appointed, (namely,thaton which they came out of Egypt,) for the two-fold purpose, thatas menthey might commemorate the creation, andas Israelitescelebrate 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 timebefore, as it wasafter, 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 ofthat one particularday sanctified to the Jews, not only to celebrate the universal love ofGodin 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 thefirstday of the week in preference to any other, or, in other words, by whom the festival of theLord’sday was instituted.
That we in the present age keep the first day of the week as a holy-day dedicated to the service of ourMakerandRedeemeris 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 isnota 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 werealwaysaccustomed to meet on thefirst 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 theRedeemer, 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 theHoly 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 notexpresslycommand 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 theLord’sday. (Rev. i. 10.) But if the testimony ofmanis great, the testimony ofGodis greater. Their observance of this festival was sanctioned by ourLordhimself, by his repeated appearance among his apostles on that day; after his resurrection it is sanctioned by theHoly Ghost, by the miraculous effusion of theSpiritupon 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 appearsprobablyto be taught in Scripture appearscertainlyto 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 weexceptthe high authority of the Church, for not observing the last day of the weekalso, 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 dedicateat leasta seventh portion of our time toGod. 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 blessedLordhimself hath taught us. It is to be used as a model for all our devotions, our blessedLordsaying, (Matt. vi. 9,) “After this mannerpray ye;” and it is to be used in express wordswheneverwe pray, ourLordcommanding us, (Luke xi. 2,) “When ye pray, say, OurFather,” &c. Therefore the Church ofChristhath used from the first to begin and end her services with theLord’sPrayer. 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 theLord’sPrayer, for the Catholic Church ever did the same. Besides, as St. Cyprian observes, if we would hope to have our prayers accepted of theFatheronly for hisSon’ssake, why should we not hope to have them most speedily accepted when they are offered up in hisSon’sown words?
It is objected by some persons in the present day, (for the objection was unknown to the primitive Church,) that ourSaviourdid not give this as an expressform 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 ourSaviourexpressly 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, “Praythus,” 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 ourLordgiven 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 toGodwho is your heavenlyFather, 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 ourLord! How many duties towardsGodare briefly expressed! Honour to theFather, 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!Godalone 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. OurLordfirst 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 termsGodshould be addressed, and therefore not having used it as a common prayer, the circumstance of ourLord’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 toGod, varying, no doubt, according to their particular sentiments. OurLord’sdisciples 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 ourLordrepeated 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 ourLord, theLordof the Church, (tam longe abfuit ipse Dominus ecclesiæ,) to unnecessary innovation, and an affectation of novelty, that he “who had not theSpiritby 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 ourLord, or of John, had hitherto neglected the duty of prayer, orthat 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 ourLordwas 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 byGod,’ (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 ourSaviour, intended and commended it unto his Church for a set form of prayer.”
Our blessedLordappears 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 yourFatheralso 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 theFather,” &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 ofChrist, 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 theirLord, that prayers may be considered as offered up in the name ofChrist, though addressed toGod; for there the disciples, on the liberation of Peter and John by the Jewish council, lift up their voice and say, “Lord, thou artGod, which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is;” and they mentionChristas his holy childJesus. In our addresses toGod, our heavenlyFather, 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 theirLordtaught 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 theLord’sPrayer, 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 “ourLordprescribed 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 ofChrist, so that whenChristwas increased, (‘he must increase, but I must decrease,’) then the work of the servant passed over to theLord. Thus the prayer of John is lost, while that of ourLordremains, 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 ofChrist. “He said to his disciples—he said to his apostles and to us, pray thus.” St. Chrysostom refers continually to theLord’sPrayer, as in common use among them by the express commandment ofChrist, and observes, “that theFatherwell knows the words and meaning of hisSon.” St. Cyprian says, “Let theFatherrecognise in your prayers the words of theSon;” 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 theFatherin that prayer and address which theSontaught us, we may the more easily be heard.” He adds, “Since we have an Advocate with theFatherfor our sins, we should, whenever we pray for pardon, allege untoGodthe 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 notmore readily obtain our desires, when we not only use his name in asking, but in his very words, present our request untoGod. 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 ofGod, as those which theSonofGodhimself 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 theOratio quotidiana, the daily, the common prayer; theOratio legitimathe 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 theLord’sinjunction; 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, “OurFather.”
The early Fathers were even of opinion, that the making use of this prayer was of vast efficacy to inclineGodto 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 byGodfor 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 pureopus operatumof repeating theLord’sPrayer. 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 (thePaternoster) 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 theLord’sPrayer, partly in opposition to the Papists, who close up their devotions with anAve 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 theLord’sPrayer, 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 toGodfor 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 theLord’sPrayer” (this is less certain). “And, therefore, I cannot but think that Papists, and many Protestants who conclude their prayers with the very words of theLord’sPrayer, make a very superstitious use of it, causing people to imagine that the bare recital of the words of theLord’sPrayer sanctifies their other prayers; and that no prayer can be accepted ofGodwhere 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 learnedChrist.’”
TheLord’sPrayer 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, orμυστικῶς,) in an unintelligible whisper; and in some instances the people joined in this manner, as was the case with respect to theLord’sPrayer and the creed. This unreasonable practice was put an end to at the Reformation, and theLord’sPrayer 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 practicefrom 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 theLord’sPrayer 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 theLord’sPrayer should be used is clearly laid down. “Then shall the priest say theLord’sPrayer, 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 theLord’sPrayer. 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 theLord’sPrayer 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 theLord’sPrayer 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, theGloria 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 fourthand fifth paragraphs, the seventh and eighth, and the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth in theLord’sPrayer; 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.
Hereandbeforethe Poweris, 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.
Hereandwas never inserted beforeThe power.
After the Creed, the punctuation is as in the first specimen, except a colon aftertemptation, and a full stop with “Amen” afterevil.HeavenandEarthdo not begin with capitals. The same in the Litany, except there is a semicolon aftertemptation. At its first occurrence in the Communion, the punctuation, &c. is the same as in the Post Communion, except that there is a comma aftertemptation. A full stop and “Amen” afterevil.
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 AlmightyGod.—Comber.And we have this sacred form from the Wonderful Counsellor, who came out of the bosom of hisFather, 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 heavenlyFather,” who cannot deny us when we speak the very same words which his dearSonhath 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 ourLord’slast 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. (SeeEucharist,Agapæ, andCommunion.)
As by the sacrament of baptism we enter into the Christian covenant, so by that of theLord’ssupper 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 ofChrist, and of the benefits which we receive thereby.”—Abp. Secker.
It is called theLord’ssupper because it was both instituted by ourLordat 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. (SeeAltar.)
LOUD VOICE. A term in our liturgy which may be considered technical; as not merely meaningaudible, (though this expression is also used,) but as being a contradistinction to thesecretòof the unreformed service, and themysticvoice (μυστικῶς) of the Greek Church: certain prayers and part of the service having been repeated in an inaudible whisper. (SeeSecretò, andMystic Voice, alsoLord’s Prayer.)
LOVE-FEASTS. (SeeAgapæ.) 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.
TheseFamilistscould 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 ofGod, andGodof 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.
It was also calledDominica in albis, [or rather,post albas depositas, according to some ritualists, as Wheatly remarks,] because it was the day on which those who had been baptized on Easter eve put off their white garments.
LUCIFERIANS, in ecclesiastical antiquity, is the name of those Christians who persisted in the schism ofLucifer, bishop of Cagliari, the capital of Sardinia.
Lucifer lived in the fourth century, and was famous for his extraordinary virtues and abilities. He was deputed by the pope to the emperor Constantius, and procured the calling of a council at Milan in the year 355, by which he himself, and the rest of the orthodox prelates, who defended Athanasius, were condemned to banishment. He was recalled from his exile by the emperor Julian, in 361, when, coming to Antioch, where the church was extremely divided between the followers of Euzoius the Arian, and of Meletius and Eustathius, orthodox bishops, he, to put an end to the schism, ordained Paulinus bishop, whom neither of the orthodox parties approved. Eusebius of Vercelli, whom the Council of Alexandria had sent to heal the divisions, extremely disapproved this ordination; whereupon Lucifer, who was of an inflexible spirit, broke off communion with him and the other prelates, and retired to Sardinia, where to his death he persisted in his separation, and, by this means, gave birth to a schism, which caused a great deal of mischief to the Church. It continued to the end of the reign of Theodosius the Great, after which time authors make little or no mention of it.
LUKE, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the 18th of October.
St. Luke was born at Antioch, and professed physic. It is not agreed whether he was, by birth, a Jew, or a heathen. Epiphanius, who makes him to be one of the seventy disciples, and consequently a Jew, thinks he was one of those who leftJesus Christupon hearing these words, “He who eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood, is not worthy of me;” but that he returned to the faith upon hearing St. Paul’s sermons at Antioch. Some authors suppose he was Cleopas’s companion, and went with him to Emmaus, whenJesus Christjoined them.
St. Luke accompanied St. Paul in his several journeys; but at what time they first came together is uncertain. Some think he met St. Paul at Antioch, and from that time never forsook him. Others believe they met at Troas, because St. Luke himself says, “immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, from Troas.”
Some think he survived St. Paul many years, and that he died at eighty-four years of age: but where, authors are not agreed. Achaia, Thebes in Bœotia, Elea in the Peloponnesus, Ephesus, and Bithynia, are severally named as the place of his death. Nor are authors better agreed as to the manner of it. Some believe he suffered martyrdom; and the modern Greeks affirm he was crucified on an olive-tree. Others, on the contrary, and among them many of the moderns, think he died a natural death.
LUKE’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament. Some think it was properly St. Paul’s Gospel, and that when St. Paul speaks of his Gospel, he means what is called St. Luke’s Gospel. Irenæus says only, that St. Luke digested into writing what St. Paul preached to the Gentiles; and Gregory Nazianzen tells us, that St. Luke wrote with the assistance of St. Paul.
This evangelist addresses his Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles, to one Theophilus, of whom we have no knowledge; many of the ancients have taken this name, in an appellative sense, for any one who lovesGod.
LUTHERANS. Those Christians who follow the opinions of Martin Luther.
This sect took its rise from the just offence which was taken at the indulgences (seeIndulgences) which, in 1517, were granted by Pope Leo X., to those who contributed towards the finishing St. Peter’s church, at Rome. It is said, the pope at first gave the princess Cibo, his sister, that branch of the revenue of indulgences which were collected in Saxony; that afterwards these indulgences were farmed out to those who would give most for them; and that these purchasers, to make the most of their bargain, pitched upon such preachers, receivers, and collectors of indulgences, as they thought proper for their purpose, who managed their business in a scandalous manner. The pope had sent these indulgences to Prince Albert, archbishop of Mentz, and brother to the Elector of Brandenburg, to publish them in Germany. This prelate put his commission into the hands of John Tetzel, a Dominican, and an inquisitor, who employed several of his own order to preach up and recommend these indulgences to the people. These Dominicans managed the matter so well, that the people eagerly bought up all the indulgences. And the farmers, finding money come in very plentifully, spent it publicly in a luxurious and libertine manner.
John Staupitz, vicar-general of the Augustines in Germany, was the first who took occasion to declare against these abuses; for which purpose he made use of Martin Luther, the most learned of all the Augustines. He was a native of Eisleben, a town of the county of Mansfeld, in Saxony; and he taught divinity at the university of Wittemberg. This learned Augustine mounted the pulpit, and declaimed vehemently against the abuse of indulgences. Nor did he stop here; he fixed ninety-five propositions upon the church doors of Wittemberg, not as dogmatical points which he himself held, but in order to be considered and examined in a public conference. John Tetzel, the Dominican, immediately published 106 propositions against them, at Frankfort upon the Oder; and, by virtue of the office of inquisitor, ordered those of Luther to be burnt; whose adherents, to revenge the affront offered to Luther, publicly burnt those of Tetzel at Wittemberg. Thus war was declared between the Dominicans and Augustines, and soon after between the Roman Catholics and the Lutheran party, which from that time began to appear openly against the Western Church.
In the year 1518, Eckius, professor of divinity at Ingolstadt, and Silvester Prierius, a Dominican, and master of the sacred palace, wrote against Luther’sTheses, who answered them in a tract, which he sent to the pope and the bishop of Brandenburg, his diocesan, offering to submit to the Holy See in the points contested. But Prierius having published a discourse full of extravagant amplifications of the pope’s power, Luther took occasion from thence to make the papal authority appear odious to the Germans. In the mean time, the process against Luther going on at Rome, the pope summoned him to appear there within sixty days: but, at the instance of the duke of Saxony, his Holiness consented that the cause should be examined in Germany, and delegated his legate, Cardinal Cajetan, to try it. This cardinal gave Luther a peremptory order to recant, and not to appear any more before him unless he complied; upon which Luther, in the night-time, posted up an appeal to the pope, and retired to Wittemberg. Afterwards, fearing he should be condemned at Rome, he published a protestation in form of law, and appealed to a general council.
In the beginning of the next year, 1519, the emperor Maximilian dying, and the Elector of Saxony, who protected Luther, being vicar of the empire during the interregnum, that reformer’s interest and character were greatly raised, and he was generally looked upon as a man sent fromGodto correct the abuses which had crept into the Roman Church. In June, the same year, there was a famous conference between Luther, Eckius, and Carolostadius, at Leipsic; in which they agreed to refer themselves to the universities of Erfurt and Paris. The points debated upon were, free-will, purgatory, indulgences, penance, and the pope’s supremacy.
In 1520, Luther sent his bookDe Libertate Christianâto the pope; in which he grounds justification upon faith alone, without the assistance of good works; and asserts, that Christian liberty rescues us from the bondage of human traditions, and particularly the slavery of papal impositions. Afterwards, in a remonstrance written in High Dutch, he proceeded to deny the authority of the Church of Rome.
In June the same year, the pope resolved to apply the last remedies which the Church makes use of against her enemies, and began with condemning in writing forty-one propositions extracted from Luther’s writings, giving him sixty days to recant: but Luther refusing to comply, the pope declared him excommunicated, and sent the bull by Eckius to the Elector of Saxony and the university of Wittemberg, who agreed to defer the publication of it. In the mean time Luther wrote against the bull with great warmth and freedom, and appealed once more from the pope to a general council. Besides which, he caused a large bonfire to be made without the walls of Wittemberg, and threw into it with his own hands the pope’s bull, together with the decretals, extravagants, and Clementines. This example was followed by his disciples in several other towns.
The emperor Charles V. declared against Luther, and ordered his books to be burnt. Upon the opening of the Diet of Worms, in 1521, Luther, with the emperor’s permission, appeared there, and made a speech in defence of himself and his opinions. But, when the diet found that he would neither stand to the decisions of councils nor the decrees of popes, the emperor gave him twenty days to retire to a place of security, and, a month after, published his imperial edict, by which Luther was put under the ban of the empire, as an heretic and schismatic. But the duke of Saxony gave private orders to convey Luther to the castle of Wartburg, where he was concealed three quarters of a year. He worked hard in this retirement, which he called hisIsle of Patmos, and kept up the spirit of his party by writing new books; among which were his “Tracts” against auricular confession, private masses, monastic vows, and the celibacy of the clergy. About this time the university of Paris, to which he had appealed, condemned a hundred propositions extracted out of his books; and King Henry VIII. of England wrote against him in defence of the seven sacraments. Luther replied both to theSorbonneand to the king of England, but in a very rude and unmannerly way.
Soon after he broke out of his retirement, and was so hardy as to publish a bull against the pope’s bullIn cœna Domini, calling it the Bull and Reformation of Doctor Luther. About this time he published part of his translation of the Bible, in which he departed from theVulgate, so long authorized and received by the Church.
The Elector of Saxony, who all along favoured and protected Luther, now gave him leave to reform the churches of Wirtemberg as he thought fit. The reformer proposed likewise a regulation concerning the patrimony of the Church; which was, that the bishops, abbots, and monks should be expelled, and all the lands and revenues of the bishoprics, abbeys, and monasteries, shouldescheatto the respective princes; and that all the convents of Mendicant friars should be turned into public schools or hospitals. This project pleased the princes and magistrates, who began to relish Luther’s doctrine extremely; insomuch that, at the Diet of Wirtemberg in 1523, when Pope Adrian VI. insisted upon the bull of Leo X. and the Edict of Worms against Luther, he could not prevail with the princes to put them in execution, but was answered, that a general council ought to be called, and that there ought to be a reformation of the ecclesiastics, and especially of the court of Rome. This year, Luther had the satisfaction to see a league contracted between Gustavus, king of Sweden, and Frederick, king of Denmark, who both agreed to establish Lutheranism in their dominions. And now Luther’s persuasion, which, from the Upper Saxony, had spread itself into the northern provinces, began to be perfectly settled in the duchies of Lunenburg, Brunswick, Mecklenburg, and Pomerania; and in the archbishoprics of Magdeburg and Bremen; and in the towns of Hamburg, Wismar, Rostock; and all along the Baltic, as far as Livonia and Prussia.
About this time Luther left off the habit of a monk, and dressed himself like a doctor, refusing to be saluted with the title ofreverend father. Erasmus having written a book concerning free-will, (De Libero Arbitrio,) Luther answered it in another, entitledDe Servo Arbitrio. In 1525, Thomas Münzer and Nicholas Storc, taking their leave of Luther, put themselves at the head of theAnabaptistsandFanatics. About this time Luther married a nun, called Catharine Boren, exhorting all the ecclesiastics and monks to follow his example. In 1526, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, turned Lutheran, who gave great life and spirit to that party.
In March, 1529, the Diet of Spire decreed that the Catholics should not have the liberty to change their religion; that the Lutherans should be tolerated till the meeting of a council, but not allowed to molest the Catholics; and that the preachers should deliver nothing in theirsermons contrary to the received doctrines of the Church. The Lutheran princes entered a solemnprotestationagainst this decree, from whence came the name ofProtestants, taken up first by the Lutherans, and afterwards received among the Calvinists.
The beginning of October, this year, was held at Marburg the conference between Luther and Zwinglius, in relation to the eucharist; the latter affirming that there is nothing more than bread and wine in theLord’ssupper, which elements are the figure and representation of his body and blood; and Luther asserting that his body and blood are really present, but under the substance of bread and wine, and that only in the act of receiving the sacrament; after which he did not acknowledge the continuance of this presence. This conference broke up without coming to any accommodation.
In 1530, the Lutherans or Protestants drew up a Confession of Faith, which they presented to the Diet of Augsburg. (SeeAugsburg, Confession of.)
The year after, the Protestant princes made the famous league ofSmalcalde, which obliged the emperor to grant the Lutherans a toleration, till the differences in religion were settled by a council, which he engaged himself to call in six months.
The Lutheran party gaining strength every day, and having refused the bull for convening a council at Mantua, the emperor summoned a general diet at Ratisbon, where a scheme of religion for reconciling the two parties was examined: but, after they had examined and disputed for a month together, the divines could agree upon no more than five or six articles, concerning justification, free-will, original sin, baptism, good works, and episcopacy; for, when they came to other points, and especially the eucharist, the Lutherans would by no means yield to the other party. The diet ended with a decree of the emperor, strictly forbidding the Lutherans to tamper with any person to make them quit their old religion, and at the same time suspending all the edicts published against them.
Martin Luther lived to see the opening of the famous Council of Trent, for accommodating the differences in religion; which put him upon acting with more vigour and warmth against the Church of Rome, as foreseeing that his opinions would be condemned there. In short, he left no stone unturned to engage the Protestant princes to act against the council; which measures he continued to pursue until his death, which happened in February, 1546.
Maurice, the Elector of Saxony, having taken the field against the emperor, and concluded a peace with him at Passaw, in 1552, it was stipulated that the exercise of Lutheranism, as stated by the Confession of Augsburg, should be tolerated all over the empire; which toleration was to last for ever, in case the differences in religion could not be accommodated within six months. And thus Lutheranism was perfectly settled in Germany.
The Lutherans are generally divided into themoderateand therigid. Themoderate Lutheransare those who submitted to theInterim, published by the emperor Charles V. Melancthon was the head of this party. (SeeInterim.)
Therigid Lutheransare those who would not endure any alteration in any of Luther’s opinions. The head of this party was Matthias Flacius, famous for writing theCenturies of Magdeburg, in which he had three other Lutheran ministers for his assistants.
To these are added another division, calledLuthero-Zwinglians, because they held some of Luther’s tenets and some of Zwinglius, yielding something to each side, to prevent the ill consequence of disunion in theReformation.
The Lutherans retain the use of the altar for the celebration of the holy communion, some of the ancient vestments, and the mitre and pastoral staff for their bishops, at least in Sweden. They likewise make use of lighted tapers in their churches, of incense, and a crucifix on the altar, of the sign of the cross, and of images, &c. Several of their doctors acknowledge that such materials add a lustre and majesty to Divine worship, and fix at the same time the attention of the people.
The Lutherans retain the observance of several solemn festivals after their reformation. They keep three solemn days of festivity at Christmas. In some Lutheran countries, the people go to church on the night of the nativity of our blessedSaviourwith lighted candles or wax tapers in their hands; and the faithful, who meet in the church, spend the whole night there in singing and saying their prayers by the light of them. Sometimes they burn such a large quantity of incense, that the smoke of it ascends like a whirlwind, and their devotees may properly enough be said to be wrapped up in it. It is customary, likewise, in Germany, to give entertainments at such times to friends and relations, and to send presents to each other,especially to the young people, whom they amuse with very idle and romantic stories, telling them that our blessedSaviourdescends from heaven on the night of his nativity, and brings with him all kinds of playthings.
They have three holidays at Easter, and three at Whitsuntide, as well as those before mentioned at Christmas. These festivals have nothing peculiar in them with respect to the ceremonies observed at those times; but with regard to some particular superstitions, they are remarkable enough; as, for instance, that of the paschal water, which is looked on as a sovereign remedy for sore eyes, and very serviceable in uniting broken limbs. This paschal water is nothing more than common river water, taken up on Easter Day, before the rising of the sun. They have another superstitious notion with respect to their horses: they imagine that the swimming them in the river on Easter Day, before the sun rises, preserves them from lameness.
The other festivals observed by the Lutherans are, New Year’s Day, or the Circumcision, a festival not near so ancient as the four above mentioned; the festival of the Three Kings, or, otherwise, the Epiphany; the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, or Candlemas; and Lady Day, or the Annunciation. There is no public work nor service devoted to the Blessed Virgin, nor are there any processions, or other ceremonies, which are observed by the Roman Catholics on the two latter festivals. The festival of the Sacred Trinity is solemnized on the Sunday after Whitsunday; that of St. John Baptist, on the 24th of June; and that of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin, on the 2nd of July, as it is by the Roman Catholics. To conclude, the festival of St. Michael the Archangel, or rather the ceremonies observed by the Lutherans on that day, are the remains only of an ancient custom, which has been preserved amongst them, although somewhat extraordinary, as the members of their communion retain no manner of veneration for angels.
In 1523, Luther drew up a formulary of the mass and communion for the particular service of the church of Wittemberg. Without attempting to particularize the various parts of it, it may be observed that all the churches where Lutheranism prevailed were obliged entirely to conform to it. However, those orders were never punctually obeyed. Some Lutheran countries have one ritual, and some another. There is a difference, likewise, in their liturgies, though, as to the fundamental articles, they all agree.—Broughton.
LYCH-GATE, or CORPSE-GATE. Fromleich, “a dead body”—(hence Leitchfield). A gate at the entrance of the churchyard, where the body was placed before burial. These are of frequent occurrence in ancient churchyards.
LYCHNOSCOPE. A narrow window near the ground, very frequently found at the south-west end of a chancel, not infrequently at the north-west, and sometimes, though seldom, in other parts of the church. The name was given on the assumption, (which is now, perhaps, universally abandoned,) that its use was to watch the pasch-light from without the church. The theory now commonly adopted, and at least in part proved, is, that lychnoscopes were confessionals. The last and fullest exposition and examination of the various theories of the use of these windows may be found in a paper by Mr. Lowe, in the first volume of the “Transactions of the Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, and other Architectural Societies.” In this paper their use as ventilators is suggested.
MACCABEES. There are two books of this name in the Apocrypha, both of an uncertain order. They are called Maccabees, because they relate the patriotic and gallant exploits of Judas Maccabeus and his brethren. Thefirstbook, which is a most valuable and authentic history, contains the history of the Jews from the beginning of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Simon, a period of about thirty-four years. Thesecondbook, which is far less valuable, and less to be depended upon, and which is in some places at variance with canonical Scripture, contains the history of about fifteen years,A. M.3828 to 3843, from the commission of Heliodorus to pillage the temple, to the victory of Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor. These two books are accounted canonical by the Roman Catholics; but there are besides two other books, called thethirdandfourthbooks of Maccabees, of very little authority, and which were never admitted into the canon by any Church. The Books of Maccabees are not read in the service of the Church of England.
MACEDONIANS. So called from Macedonius, a bishop of Constantinople, deposed from his see by a council of 360, and alsoPneumatomachians, fromπνεῦμα, (Spiritus,) andμάχομαι, (pugno,) from their distinctive error: a sect of heretics whoarose in the fourth century, who denied the separate personality of theHoly Ghost. They were condemned by the second general council, (of Constantinople,) anno 381, and against their errors the expansion of the latter portion of the Nicene Creed was directed: “I believe in theHoly Ghost, theLordand giver of life, who proceedeth from theFatherand theSon, who with theFatherand theSontogether is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.”
MAGDEBURG CENTURIES. (SeeCenturies.)
MAGISTRAL. An officer in cathedral and collegiate churches and royal chapels in Spain, generally a canon, whose duty it was to preach a certain course of sermons. He was so called, as it was necessary for him to be a master (or, as we should call it, bachelor) in theology. This was aprebenda de oppositione, that is, it was conferred upon the successful candidate in a public disputation so called.
MAGNIFICAT. The song of the blessed Virgin Mary, which is appointed to be said or sung in English after the first lesson at Evening Prayer, unless the 90th Psalm, calledCantate Domino, is used.
MALACHI, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament.
The author of the Lives of the Prophets, and the Alexandrian Chronicle, say, that Malachi was of the tribe of Zebulun, and a native of Sapha, and that the name of Malachi was given him because of hisangelicalmildness; which made Origen and Tertullian believe, that he was an “angel incarnate.” He is called an “angel” by most of the Fathers, and in the version of the Septuagint. Some think that Malachi is no other than Ezra, or Esdras, and this is the opinion of the ancient Hebrews, of the Chaldee Paraphrast, and of St. Jerome.
Malachi is the last of the twelve lesser prophets. He prophesied about three hundred years beforeChrist, reproving the Jews for their wickedness after their return from Babylon, charging them with rebellion, sacrilege, adultery, profaneness, and infidelity, and condemning the priests for being careless and scandalous in their ministry. At the same time, he forgets not to encourage the “pious remnant,” who, in that corrupt age, “feared theLord, and thought upon his name.”
This prophet distinctly points at theMessiah, who was “suddenly to come to his temple,” and to be introduced by Elijah the prophet, that is, by John the Baptist, who came “in the spirit and power of Elias,” or Elijah.
The Jews pretend that, in the time of Darius, son of Hystaspis, there was held a general assembly of the heads of their nation, to settle the canon of their Scriptures; that Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi presided in this council, and that Esdras was their secretary. But it is certain Daniel did not live at that time. They add, that in the last year of Darius, died the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and with them ceased the spirit of prophecy among the Israelites; and that this was the sealing up of vision and prophecy, spoken of by Daniel.
The death of the prophet Malachi is placed, in the Roman martyrology, on the 14th of January.
MANASSES, PRAYER OF. One of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, which is rejected as spurious even by the Church of Rome; and though in the list of the apocryphal books contained in the sixth Article, is not read in the service of the Church of England. It cannot be traced to a higher source than the Vulgate version; and is evidently not the prayer of King Munasseh, mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18, 19, as it never was extant in the Hebrew.—Horne’s Introd.
MANICHEANS. Christian heretics, who took their name from one Manes. The ancients do not well agree as to the time of this heretic’s first appearance. But Spanheim says, it was in the time of Probus, a little before Diocletian, and that his heresy was a compound of the Pythagorean, Gnostic, and Marcionite opinions. According to the accounts given by the Greeks, (from whom, however, the Oriental writers differ considerably,) one Terebinthus, disciple to Scythianus, a magician, finding that in Persia, whither he was forced to retire out of Palestine, the priests and learned men of the country did strongly oppose his errors and designs, retired into a widow’s house, where (it is said) he was killed, either by angels or by demons, as he was engaged in incantations. This woman, being heiress to the money and books of Terebinthus, bought a slave named Cubricus, whom she afterwards adopted, and caused to be instructed in all the sciences of Persia. This man, after the woman’s death, changed his name, to obliterate the memory of his first condition, and assumed that of Manes. He pretended to be the apostle ofChrist, and that he was the Comforter ourSaviourpromised to send. He promised the king of Persia that he would cure his son; whereupon the father sent away all the physicians, and the patient died soonafter: whereupon Manes was imprisoned, but made his escape; but being soon apprehended again, was flayed alive, and his carcass thrown to the wild beasts.
Manes held that there were two principles, the one good, from whence proceeded the good soul of man, and the other bad, from whence proceeded the evil soul, and likewise the body with all corporeal creatures. He taught his disciples to profess a great severity of life, notwithstanding which they were able to wallow in all impurity, and he forbade to give alms to any that were not of his own sect. He attributed the motions of concupiscence to the evil soul; he gave out that the souls of his followers went through the elements to the moon, and afterwards to the sun, to be purified, and then toGod, in whom they did rejoin; and those of other men, he alleged, went to hell, to be sent into other bodies. He alleged, thatChristhad his residence in the sun; theHoly Ghostin the air; wisdom in the moon; and theFatherin the abyss of light: he denied the resurrection, and condemned marriage; he held Pythagoras’s transmigration of souls; thatChristhad no real body; that he was neither dead nor risen, and that he was the Serpent that tempted Eve. He forbade the use of eggs, cheese, milk, and wine, as creatures proceeding from a bad principle; he used a form of baptism different from that of the Church. He taught that magistrates were not to be obeyed, and condemned the most lawful wars. It were next to impossible to recount all the impious and damnable tenets of this heresiarch, insomuch that Leo the Great said of him, that the devil reigned in all other heresies, but he had built a fortress and raised his throne in that of the Manicheans, who embraced all the errors and impieties that the spirit of man was capable of; for whatever profanation was in Paganism, carnal blindness in Judaism, unlawful curiosity in magic, or sacrilegious in other heresies, did all centre in that of the Manicheans.
The Manicheans were divided into hearers and the elect: of the elect, twelve were called masters, in imitation of the twelve apostles; and there was a thirteenth, who was a kind of pope amongst them. Authors charge them with ascribing a body toGod, and alleging that he was substantially in everything, though never so base as mire, dirt, &c., but was separated from them by the coming ofChrist, and by the Manicheans eating the fruits of the earth. They likewise maintained, that there had been a great combat between the princes of darkness and light, wherein they who held forGodwere taken prisoners, and that he laboured still for their redemption. Moreover, he held that the sun and the moon were ships, that the soul of a man and of a tree were of the same substance, and both of them a part ofGod; that sin was a substance, and not a quality or affection, and therefore natural, and that acquired by the fall; he likewise held a fatality, and denied free-will. The emperors, in the fourth century, made laws against these heretics, who renewed their opinions in Africa, Gaul, and Rome, where a council was held against them.—But Manicheism continued to exist among the heretics of the middle ages.—SeeBurton.Augusti.
MANIPLE, or MANUPLE. Originally a narrow strip of linen suspended from the left arm of the priest, and used to wipe away the perspiration from the face: gradually it received embellishments, it was bordered by a fringe, and decorated with needle-work. It is not improbable that its use might be to clean the sacred vessels, as has been supposed by some, for in the eleventh century it was given to the subdeacons as the badge of their order. It is distinguished from theepigonatonby being worn on the left side. The maniple is not retained among the ecclesiastical vestments of the Church of England.
MANSE.Mansio.The ancient name (as appears from old records) for an ecclesiastical residence, whether parochial or collegiate. In Scotland it was peculiarly appropriated to parsonage houses; and now designates the residences of the ministers of the Presbyterian establishment. It was anciently applied also to the prebendal houses there.—SeeM’Ure’s History of Glasgow.
MANSIONARIES. The permanently resident canons in some Italian cathedrals: in others of the same country the term was applied to certain of the inferior clergy.
MANUDUCTOR, (Lat.,) in the ancient Christian Church, was an officer, who, from the middle of the choir, where he was placed, gave the signal to the choristers to sing, marked the measure, beat the time, and regulated the music. He was so called, because he led or guided the choir by the motions and gesture of the hand.
The Greeks called the same kind of officerMesochoros, because he was seated in the middle of the choir.
MARANATHA. On this word, which is added by St. Paul to the wordAnathema, in 1 Cor. xvi. 22, Bingham, who has collectedthe authorities of the Fathers, tells us that St. Chrysostom says it is a Hebrew word, signifyingTheLordis come: and he particularly applies it to the confusion of those who still abused the privileges of the gospel, notwithstanding that theLordwas come among them. “This word,” says he, “speaks terror to those who make their members the members of an harlot, who offend their brethren by eating things offered to idols, who name themselves by the names of men, who deny the resurrection. TheLordof all is come down among us; and yet ye continue the same men ye were before, and persevere in your sins.” St. Jerome says, it was more a Syriac than a Hebrew word, though it had something in it of both languages, signifyingOurLordis come. But he applies it against the perverseness of the Jews, and others who denied the coming ofChrist: making this the sense of the apostle, “If any man love not theLord Jesus Christ, let him beAnathema, theLordis come; wherefore it is superfluous for any to contend with pertinacious hatred against him, of the truth of whose coming there is such apparent demonstration.” The same sense is given by Theodoret, by Hilary the deacon, and Pelagius, whose writings have passed under the names of St. Ambrose and St. Jerome respectively. And it is received by Estius and Dr. Lightfoot as the truest interpretation. So that, according to this sense,Maranathacould not be any part of the form of excommunication, but only a reason for pronouncingAnathemaagainst those who expressed their hatred againstChrist, by denying his coming; either in words, as the Jews did, who blasphemedChrist, and calledJesusAnathemaor accursed; or else by wicked works, as those who lived profanely under the name of Christian. But Parkhurst is rather inclined to derive it from the Hebrew,miharem atha, signifyingcursed art thou; thembeing changed inton, as was frequent among Hellenizing Jews.