Associate professor of church history princeton theological seminary baker book house

Download 4.25 Mb.
Size4.25 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   38




saints, the extravagant decoration of churches, mass and the sacraments, the obligation to take oaths, and the justification of war and the penalty of death. These eleven theses are all derived pri­marily from Wyclif, and are permeated with the principle, common both to Wyclif and to Luther, that the Bible is the sole source of religious truth. The Old Testament, however, was far inferior, in their opinion, to the New, so that everything out­side the New Testament was regarded as erroneous and harmful. Herein the Lollards departed from the conservative attitude of Wyclif and Luther with regard to the Old Testament [and were at one with early continental Evangelicals such as the Waldenses, and with the Anabaptists of the six­teenth century. e. H. x.]. This principle explains the negations already noted. The doctrines of God and man, as well as of the person and office of Christ, are lost in the intensity of their opposition to the Roman Catholic teachings concerning the means of grace and the sacerdotal function, although this frequently led to a spirituality which,was diamet­rically opposed to their Biblical objectivity, since it expected all from the spirit though it destroyed the means of intercommunication.

The faulty presentation in the scanty literature of the Lollards renders it difficult to tell whether they possessed a sharply defined system as opposed to the Roman Catholic teachings. Even their doc­trine of the Eucharist nowhere receives a thorough proof, except that Oldcastle held that in the form of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is present in the Eucharist after the consecration, al­though the elements still exist. This view accord‑

ingly represents the doctrine of the ::. Lollard Real Presence as often taught by the View of the Anglican Church, and approximates Eucharist. the position of Luther rather than that

of Calvin. On the other hand, Walter Brute, of whom little is known, held that the pres­ence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist is sacra­mental (i.e., symbolical), and not sacrificial, thus attacking the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass. This is not found in the works of Wyclif. The view is also found that Christ has written his law in the hearts of believers, and fulfils through grace what the law can not fulfil through right­eousness, so that the believer is justified by faith and not by works, a tenet almost identical with that of Luther. (RunoLir BUDDEN81Edt.)

]BIBLIOGRAPHY: The literature under Wrci.rP, Joaia is of first importance, especially Lechler's work. For sources consult: Thomas Netter of Walden (7), Faecicuii siza­niorum . . Johannia Wyc1iJ cum tritico, ed. W. W. Shirley, in Rolls Series, no. 6, London, 1858 (the only contemporary account of the rise of the Lollarde, fitted by the editor with a masterly discussion of Wyclif sad his times); R. Pecock, The Repressor of Overmuch Bla­ming of the Clergy, ed. C. Babington, in Rolls Series, no. 19, ib. 1860 (valuable as preserving arguments used by the Lollarde against casting practises); Thomas Wal­eingham, Hiatoria Anglicans (1,87,8‑14,x$). ed. H. T. Riley, in Rolls Series no. 28, 1., 2 vole., ib. 1863‑64; Chronicon Anglia 138‑88 ed. E. M. Thompson, in Rolls Series, no. 84, ib. 1874 (adverae to Lollarde); Henry Knighton, hronicon ed. J. R. Lumby, in Rolls Series, 2 vola. London. 1889‑9b; Apology for' Lollard Doctrine, Attributed to Wiclif/e, ed. J. H. Todd for Camden Society, ib. 1842; The Peasants' Rising and the Lollarda, a Collec­tion of Unpublished Documents, ed. E. Powell sad G. M.

Trevelyan, ib. 1899. Documents relating to ecclesiastical action against the Lollarde are in D. Wilkins, Concilia Mao" Britannia! et Hibernia, vol. iii., ib. 1737; par­liamentary proceedings are given in RotuZi parliamsn­torum, vole. iii.‑iv., ib. 1808‑34. Selections from T. Gsaeoigne's Liber roeritatum were published as Loci a libro veritatum, Oxford, 1881, and contain much of value.

Of more modern works, aside from Lechler (ut cup.), consult: The Lodlarda, some Account of as Witnesses for the Truth in Great Britain, 1.¢00‑16/,B, London, 1843; $. R. Maitland, Essays, pp. 203‑230, ib 1852; A. Jundt, Lea Preeuraeura de Jean Hues au 14. aiecls, Montauban, 1877; J. Gairdner and J. 8pedding, Studies in Brig. Hint., pp. 1‑b4, Edinburgh, 1881; W Marshall, Wycliffe and the Lotlatda, ib. 1884; J. F. Latimer, in Presbyterian Quarterly, April, 1888; R. L. Poole. Wycliffe and the Movement for Reform London, 1889; A. Snow, in Dublin Review, eaviii (1898), 40‑82 (Roman Catholic); H. L. Cannon, Poor Priests: a Study in as Rise of English Lol­lardry, in American Hiatoricial Association's Annual Ro­port, i (1899), Washington, 1900; G. M. Trevelyan, Eng­land in the Time of Wycliffe, London, 1904; W. H. Sum­mers. Our Lollard Ancestors, ib. 1904; idem, Loilarde of as Chiltern Hill*, ib. 1908• Creighton, Papacy, i 348 eqq.: J. Gaitdner, Lollardy and the Reformation in England, 2 vole., London, 1908; and the literature on the church history of the period.

LOMAIf, ABRAHAM DIRE: Dutch Protes­tant; b. at The Hague Sept. 16, 1823; d. at Am­sterdam Apr. 17, 1897. After completing his studies at the Lutheran and Mennonite seminaries at Amsterdam, he traveled through Germany and Switzerland. Returning to Holland in 1846 he be­came assistant pastor of the Lutheran Church at Maastricht, where he was pastor for a year (1848­1849), after which he occupied a similar position at Deventer for seven years (1849‑56). In 1856 he was appointed professor in the Lutheran sem­inary at Amsterdam, and in 1877, while still re­taining his chair in the seminary, he became pro­fessor in the university of the same city, despite the fact that he had been totally blind since 1874. In 1893 he retired from active life.

As a theologian Loman belonged from the first to the so‑called " modern school "; as early as 1861 he had advanced the view in De Grids that the Gos­pel account of the Resurrection was due to visions of the faithful. His main field was the New Testa­ment, although his only book was his Bijdragen ter inleiding op de Johanneische schriften des Nieu­tven Testaments (Amsterdam, 1865), of which the first part alone, on the testimony of the Muratorian Canon to the Fourth Gospel, was actually published. Later he devoted himself to the synoptic Gospels in his Bijdragen tee de criliek der sy,wPl'.,)te em, gelien (ThT, 1869‑79). Here is manifest the be­ginning of the symbolic interpretation of the Gos­pels which he later developed. His view found its expression in his address on Het ottdete Christendom be­fore the "Free Congregation"at Amsterdam in Dec., 1881 (reprinted in Sternrnen uit de Vrije Ge>neente, Amsterdam, 1882), in which he declared that Christ was not a historic personality, but the incorpora­tion of a series of concepts and the symbolization and personification of thoughts and principles which were first fully developed in the Christianity of the second century, the passion and resurrec­tion being nothing more than the abasement and death of Israel and its revival as Christianity. The storm of opposition which this hypothesis aroused forced Loman to reconsider his attitude, and he



granted, in 1882, the historicity of Christ, but de­

nied that he had founded Christianity. He made

still further retractationa in his De oorsproytg van

het geloof aan Jezus opstanding in De Girls, 1888,

in which all trace of novelty disappears from his

theory, since he grants the historic personality of

Christ and the fact that he actually founded Chris­

tianity, although still maintaining that the resur­

rection represents merely the metamorphosis of the

Jewish Messianic community into the world‑wide

Christian Church.

Loman's symbolic theory of the Gospels now

forced him to deny the authenticity of the Pauline

epistles, for if they were actually written by Paul

in the Apostolic Age, his Christological hypothesis

would become untenable. In his Quteationes Pa‑ttr

lime (ThT, 1882‑86), therefore, he distinguished

between s " historic Paul" and a " canonical

Paul," the former making a propaganda for the

Jewish Messianic ideal outside Palestine, and the

latter being merely a legendary figure.

Loman was not only a theologian, but also a mu­

sician, and composed a number of chorales and

choruses, besides writing the libretto of an ora­

torio in four acts on the Song of Solomon.

BIBLIOGRAPHY'. H. U. Meyboom has contributed articles

on Loman'e life to De Gida, 1898, ii. 80‑117, and to Le­

venatrerichten der afpeatoruem medeleden van de Maatachap­

pij der Nederlandsche letterkunde, 1898, 26‑28, 89‑72,

and D. E. J. Vblter has written in Jaar6oek van de ko­

ninklijke Akademie van Wetenachappen, 1899, pp. 3‑38.

LOMBARDS: A warlike Teutonic tribe of the

period of migrations. They are first mentioned

by Strabo. Their oldest abode on the Elbe is

recalled by such names as Bardowik and Bar­

dengau. While settled here they were defeated

by the Romans in the year 5 A.D. A few cen­

turies later, driven doubtless by hunger, they

wandered southeastward into the Danube region.

Under the heroic Alboin they destroyed the

Gepidse, and in 568 entered Italy. In the course

of the next few years they conquered northern and

central Italy, and erected Pavia (Ticinum) into

a royal residence. They failed to acquire Venice

and Naples and the Grecian coast strips, as also

Rome and Ravenna.

The people they conquered became, for the most

part, half free (aldiones). The few free men were

excluded from public offices and army service, and

all stood subject to Lombard law, and were ob­

liged to make over to their district lords a portion

of the fruits of the soil. The several divisions of

the people, classed as nobles, freemen, half‑free,

and serfs, were governed by kings of noble de­

scent, endowed with conquered or confiscated

estates, and qualified as army leaders, judges,

lawgivers, and administrators. The leaders of

army divisions were at first dukes during only

a life term, but afterward they became heredi­

tary princes with almost royal power, not a few

of them, such as the dukes of Spoleto and Bene­

vento, being nearly independent. Unfortunately

for the Lombards, King Alboin was murdered by

his consort in 572, and in 574 his successor was

murdered. Then followed, under thirty‑five dukes,

a decade of turmoil, until an invasion of the

Franks led to the election of the powerful Autharis. He overcame the rebellious, concluded peace with the Franks, acquired the valley of the Po, and married the Catholic Bavarian Prin­cess Theodelinda.

Under Theodelinda and her second consort, Agilulf, the Arian Lombards turned gradually to the Catholic faith. The royal pair founded and endowed churches and cloisters, as at Monza and Bobbio, installed Catholic bishops, and had their son baptized and brought up in the new faith. It was mainly Gregory the Great who contributed to this tranformation. Notwithstanding some re­lapses into Arianism, the orthodox faith continued to spread; and in towns where there were a Catho­lic and an Arian bishop the former took precedence over the latter. However, in relation to the pope, the bishop preserved an attitude of independence. After 653 all the rulers and all the bishops were of the orthodox faith, and Milan was the ecclesiastical center of the realm.

The reign of Rotharis (615), enlarger of the king­dom and subduer of formidable dukes, is distin­guished by the promulgation of the Edict of Roth­aris (643), comprehending penal and private law, and for the first time affording written law. Though barbaric in form it is humane in substance, and in­sures protection to the poor. Still more humane and equitable were the laws of Luitprand (712­744), under whom the kingdom achieved its great­est prosperity. He mitigated slavery and com­bated abuses, such as premature abjuration of cloister vows and duels. His piety manifested itself in the building of many churches, and in reverence of the popes, although the latter resisted his efforts toward the unity of Italy, which the fusion of Ro­mans and Lombards, already initiated, was to con­summate. After reiterated threats from Rome (under Gregory II. and III.), Pope Zacharias ob­tained peace from him (743), and the partial res­toration of Lombard conquests; likewise, from his successor Ratchis (744‑749), who was friendly to the Romans, the relinquishment of the siege of Perugia. Ratchia was succeeded by his warlike brother Aatolphus, whose resumption of menacing projects of unity drove Pope Stephen II. to an alli­ance with the Frankish King Pepin. In the course of two campaigns (754 and 756) Pepin won the capital, forced Astolphua to pay tribute, swear fealty, and surrender the exarchate of Ravenna, Emilia and Pentapolis, and places not as yet ceded, thus furnishing the nucleus for the temporal do­minion of the popes (see PAPAL STATEB). Aatol­phus' successor, Deaiderius (756‑774), was at first accommodating to the pope and the Frankish rulers; but after his power was well secured, he fell out with both Adrian I. and Charlemagne. In 774 Charle­magne conquered Desiderius, sent him to a cloister, confiscated the kingdom, and called himself king of the Franks and Lombards. Thus the unity of major Italy and the sovereignty over Rome was consum­mated by a Frankish, instead of by a Lombard king. However, the conqueror, as well as his son Pepin, the governor and king of the Lombards, still had to fight several momentous conflicts with the kinsmen of Desideriue, the dukes of Friuli and Benevento.

London Polyglot


The former obtained recognition of his Lombard possessions by way of Byzantium. H. HA».

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources are in the reports of such Greek and Roman writers as 8trabo and Taoitus, in Byzantine writers such se Procopius (in CSHB, vole. i.‑iii.), Theo­phylect (in Labbe'e Corpus Xiatmta: Byaantine!, Paris, 1848) and Theophanes (ed. C. de Boor, 2 vole., Leip­eic, 1885‑87): also in dfGH, Script. rer. Laugab., ed. Waits, 1878; MGH, Log., iv. 1888; C. Troys, Cadiz dipfomatieo tongobardo, 8 vole Naples, 1852‑bb; Dahl­mann and Waits, Qnedlenku„de der deutec7un Ceachichte, Leipeio, 1905. The Hietoria Langobardarum of Paulus Diaconue is translated by W. D. Foulke, New York, 1907. Consult: P. Balan, Romans a Lanyobwdi, Modem, 1887; F. Dahn, Langobardiache Studien, vol. i.. Leipaic, 1878; idem, Urpeachiehte der germanischen and rllmiachan Vslher, vol. iv., chap. 7, Berlin, 1889; F. Bartolini, I Barbarfi. Stories dells dominazioni barbarieehe, 396‑ID84, Milan, 1878; J. Weiss, Italicn and die Lanpobardenlursecher, Halls, 1887; J. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, vole. v.‑viii., Oxford, 189589; L. . M. Hartmann, Geachichte Italians in Mittelalter, vole. i.‑iii., Goths, 19008; P. Villari, The Barbarian Invasions of Italy, 2 vola., London. 1902 (2d ed. of the Italian, Milan, 190b); L. Gauthier, Lea Lombards done lea De=‑Bourgopnsa, Parse, 1907; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xlv. and vol. v. b17‑b18; Nenader, Christian Church, vol. iii. Passim.

LONG, ALBERT LIMERICK: American Metho­dist Episcopal missionary; b. at Washington, Pa., Dec. 4, 1832; d. in Liverpool, England, July 28, 1901. He was educated at the Western Univer­sity of Pennsylvania, Pittsburg, and at Allegheny College, Meadville, Pa., graduating from the latter in 1852. He then studied theology in the Concord Biblical Institute (now Boston University), and entered the Methodist Episcopal ministry in 1857. In 1857 he was sent to Bulgaria as missionary of the Methodist Episcopal Church, where he labored until 1863, when he went to Constantinople to as­sist E. Riggs in revising the translation of the Bible into Bulgarian. From 1872 till his death he was a professor in Robert College, Constantinople. Be­sides the translation of the Bible, he wrote several hymns in the Bulgarian language, and also edited a Bulgarian periodical.

LOftGLEY, CHARLES THOMAS: Archbishop of Canterbury; b. at Boley Hill, near Rochester (27 m. s.e. of London), July 28, 1794; d. at Ad­dington Park, near Croydon (10 m. s.w. of Cam­bridge), Oct. 27, 1868. He received his preliminary education at Cheam, Surrey, and at Westminster; in 1812 entered Christ Church College, Oxford (B.A., 1815; M.A., 1818; B.D. and D.D., 1829); was reader in Greek in his college, 1822, tutor and censor, 1825‑28, and proctor, 1827; meanwhile he took orders in 1818 and became curate at Cowley, then incumbent, 1823; was made rector of West
Tytherley, Hampshire, 1827; was elected headmaster of Harrow, 1829, a poet which did not serve to bring out his beat qualities, since the discipline grew lax' became first bishop of the new see of Ripon, 1836, in this position gaining success in his opposition to Roman Catholic teaching, though at first he received much blame which changed to

praise after several ministers became Roman Cath­olics; he was translated to the see of Durham, 1856; became archbishop of York, 1860, and a privy councilor the same year; was promoted arch­bishop of Canterbury, 1864. Two events of im­portance marked his primacy. The first was the deposition of Bishop John William Colenso (q.v.), in which Longley declared his belief in the un­soundness of Colenso's position respecting the docu­ments of the Hexateuch and in the legality of his deposition. The second was the first meeting in 1867 of the Lambeth Conference (q.v.). His prin­cipal publications were charges and sermons.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Arnold, Our Bishops and Deans, i. 181­188, London, 1875; A. jt. Aahwell and R. G. Wilberforce, Life of . . . S. Wilberjorce, ,paae;m, London, 1880‑82; DNB, auv.121‑122.


LOOFS, lbfs, FRIEDRICH ARMIN: German Lutheran; b, at Hildesheim (21 m. s.s.e. of Han­over) June 19, 1858. He was educated at the uni­versities of TUbingen, Gottingen, and Leipaic (Ph.D., 1881), and from 1882 to 1886 was privat­dorent for church history at the latter university, becoming associate professor in 1886. In 1887 he went in the same capacity to Halls, where he has been full professor of church history since 1888. He is a corresponding member of the Berlin Acad­emy of Sciences, and in theology belongs to the school of Ritachl. He has written Zur Chronologis der auf die frllukischen Synoden des heiligen Bmai­fatiua beziiglichen Briefs der btmifaziachen Brief­aammlung (Leipsie, 1851); De antiques Britanum et Sco6orum ecclesia. (1882); Leorttius von Byzanz and die gleichnamigen Schriftsteller der gr£echischen Kirche, i (1887); Die Haadachriften der lateiniachen Ueberadzurag des Rend= and ihre Kapitelteilung (1888); Leitfaden zum Stadium der Dog?wtn­geachichEs (Halls, 1889; rev. and enl. ed., 1908); PredigEen (2 vole., 1892‑01); Studien caber die dem Johannes von Ddmaakus zugeschriebenen Parallelen (1892); Die Auferatehurtgageachichte and ihr alert (Tilbingen, 1898); Eustathiua von Sebaste and die Chronologie tier Basiliusbriefe (Halls, 1898); Schdpf­ungsgeachichte, Siindenfall oral Thurmbnu zxc Babel (Tilbingen, 1899); Anti‑Haeckel, eine Replik reebet Beilagen (Halls, 1900; Eng. transl., London, 1903); Crrundlinien der Kirchengeschichte in der Form von Dispositionerr. (Halls, 1901); Symboliko der chriat­liche Konfesaionskuruie, i (Tiibingen, 1902); and Neattrreana, die Fragmente des Nestorius geaammelt, uateraucht and herauagegeben (Halls, 1905).

LOOMIS, 1>Z'mis, AUGUSTUS WARD: American Presbyterian missionary; b. at Andover, Corm., Sept. 4,1816; d. at San Mateo, Cal., July 26, 1891. He was graduated at Hamilton college (1841) and at Princeton Theological Seminary (1844). He was missionary in China, at Macao, Chusan, and Ningpo (1844‑50); among the Creek Indiana at Kowetah (1852‑53); and among the Chinese in San Francisco (1859‑91). He was stated supply at St. Charles, Mo. (1853‑54), and at Lower Rock Island, Edwards, and Millersburg, Ill. (1854‑59). He wrote: Confu‑

cius and the Chinese Classics (San Francisco, 1867), and English arid Chineae Leaaorta (New York, 1872).


Lord's er

LORD: A term of address occurring in both the Old and the New Testament. In both A. V. and R. V. it occurs in three forms: " Loxn," " Lord," and ""lord," and represents both different words and different usages of the same word. (1) In the Old Testament " LORD " represents the divine name Yahweh or Yah (cf. I Kings viii. 39), trans­lated in the Septuagint by kurioa. It should be noted that in Gen. xv. 2, 8; Iea. aav. 8, and other passages the collocation 'Adontti Yahweh occurs in the Hebrew, and in Ex. xxiii. 17, xxciv. 23, 'Acton Yahweh, and in these cases Yahweh is rendered " God " to avoid the collocation " Lord LORD." (2) In the Old Testament " Lord " is employed to render 'Adonay (a plural of excellence) when refer­ring to deity, especially in theophaniea (cf. Gen. xviii. 3, xx. 4); also to render 'Adore in such pas­sages as Ex. xxiii. 17 (Hebr. 'Acton Yahweh), and the Aramaic Mare, Dan, ii. 47, v. 23. In the New Testament the A. V. usually renders kurnoa by " Lord " when referring to God or Christ; also deapotka in Luke ii. 29; Acts iv. 24; II Pet. ii. 1; Rev. vi. 10 (the R. V. renders " Master " in the last two cases and in Jude 4 and puts the same word in the margin in the first two cases; in Jude 4 the A. V. translates "Lord God "). (3) In the Old Testament "lord" translates ten words which ex­press various kinds of superiority of station or author­ity, including even the theophanic angel of Josh. v. 14. In the New Testament it translates kurios, »tegis­tan, and rabboni. Also see JEHOVAH; and YAHWEH.

LORD OF HOSTS. See Swswoxa.
LORD'S DAY: A designation of the first day of the week first found in Rev. i. 10, to kuriake hftera, Lat. Dominica dies. In the Didache, uv. 1, kuriak8 first appears as a noun with this meaning.


I. The Time and Place of !. The Fourth Peti­

Inetitution. lion.

II. The Contents. b. The Fifth Petition.

1. The Invocation. 8. The Sixth Petition.

2. The First Petition. 7. The Seventh Peti­

3. The Second and Third lion.

Petitions. 8. The Doxology.

I. The Time and Place of Institution: The teat of the prayer is found in Matt. vi. 9‑13 and in somewhat different form in Luke xi. 2‑4. In Mark xi. 25 there is a reminiscence of Matt. vi. 9, 14, and 15. Compare these passages with Christ's teach­ing to the woman of Samaria; God is the Father and moat be worshiped in spirit and in truth (John iv. 21). Matthew introduces the Lord's Prayer as supplementary to the Sermon on the Mount; Luke

under altogether different circumstances, although

he leaves time and place unspecified. It is imme­diately after the visit to Martha and Mary at Beth­any (Luke x. 38‑42) that the institution of the prayer is related and the Mount of Olives is tradi­tionally pointed out as the place where this inci­dent took place, although there is nothing in the text to warrant this idea. It wag, however, the eight of Jesus himself in prayer that suggested to his disciples the request they made, '` Lord, teach us to pray." His power and willingness to do this

seemed all the more probable because his fore­runner the Baptist had taught his disciples how to pray. In a Syrian fragment in the Bodleian Li­brary an early fabrication of the Baptist's prayer is still extant and rune, " God make us worthy of thy kingdom and the joy that is therein, and show us the baptism of thy Son." On comparing Matthew's account with that of Luke the impression is pro­duced that the prayer was on some occasion given not only to the personal companions of Christ but to the general multitude, after the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount and the calling of the twelve apostles (Luke vi. 20‑49), and that the institution took place on two separate occasions. But a closer examination warrants the belief that there is no real connection as far as time and place are con­cerned between the giving of the prayer and the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount. Closely re­lated with the text of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew is the prayer found in the Didache (viii. 2), "Do not pray as the hypocrites do, but as the Lord commanded in his Gospel, so pray ye," and then follows St. Matthew's version, with the variant " for thins is the power and the glory for ever."

II. The Contents: Examination of thin prayer leads to the conclusion that it is not a new prayer in the sense that it introduces anything out of har­mony with the historic traditions of Jewish piety and devotion. Thus the Kaddish or Synagogue liturgy begins with the words, " Glorified and hal­lowed be his great name in the world which he has created, according to his will, and may his king­dom prevail, and his redemption spring up, and may he send his Messiah and redeem his people." In the same tenor rune the great Jewish prayer, the Shemoneh `Esreh, or prayer of eighteen petitions, which the Jews offered thrice every day. Yet from the sense in which Christ's words in the Lord's Prayer moat be interpreted this composition may be fairly looked upon as a new prayer. It illua­tratea in the fullest degree the meaning of the prov­erb " if two say the same thing it is not the same," for while the Lord's Prayer can be used to‑day by every Jew who may know nothing and wish to know nothing of Christ, yet it can only be properly offered by those who pray is the name of Jesus, and who know what is meant by praying in the name of the Crucified.

1. The Invocation: In the words, "Our Father which art in heaven," is summarized the whole Gos­pel, although in certain senses they might be used by Jews or heathen. In the Homeric poems the Greek prayed to Father Zeus, father of men and gods, and the Jews, although with much profounder consciousness of religion, called upon Yahweh, so­knowlhim as their father and claimed the re­lationship of children (Deut. axxii. 6; Iga. lxiii. 16, Ixiv. 8). Yet the word " our " was not meant to include the disciples in the game relation of gon­ahip as that in which Jesus stood to the Father. Jesus made a distinction to this effect when he said " my father " and " your father " (Matt. vii. 21; cf. v. 16, vi. 8). Nevertheless their belief in their master as a God‑sent Messiah, as the bringer of re­demption and reconciliation with God, placed them in a position toward God as their Father which

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   38

The database is protected by copyright © 2022
send message

    Main page