The Text of Luther's 95 Theses

Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther
on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
by Dr. Martin Luther (1517)

Published in:

Works of Martin Luther:
Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds.
(Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol.1, pp. 29-38
_______________

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite [Repent! The Vulgate here is unfortunate: Do Penance], willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.

14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.

20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.

25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.

26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.

31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.

33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;

34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. 45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.

54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.

57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are that treasure;

61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.

67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!

72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness.

76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.

78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."

83. Again: -- "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"

84. Again: -- "What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's sake?"

85. Again: -- "Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?"

86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"

87. Again: -- "What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?"

88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?"

89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?"

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

Swiped this from HERE. For a nice summary of the Roman Catholic doctrine and practice of Indulgences, click HERE. HERE are some facts about Indulgences and Luther's 95 Theses.

Sasse: "The great human question of life, the question concerning the gracious God."

Things have certainly changed in the world since the first anniversary of the Reformation. Yet the final, do-or-die questions of theology have remained the same. God has remained constant regarding his wrath and his grace, regarding his Word in Law and Gospel. Christ the Lord has remained the same and is present with us in the Gospel and in the Sacrament as he has been at all times. The Holy Ghost is present and efficacious in the means of grace, as he has always been. And even man has remained the same in his misery, although he would not desire to recognize it. For the man of our times, ostensibly come of age, is really not so elevated above sixteenth-century man. Claus Harms [1778-1855] compared people of the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries in one of his theses for the Reformation anniversary of 1817. “The forgiveness of sins cost money, believe it or not, in the sixteenth century. In the nineteenth, however, one gets it entirely for free, for it is self-serve. That time stood higher than ours, because it was nearer to God.” And what about the progress of modern man on the way to ever-greater maturity? Who does not think at this point about Kant’s [1724-1804] definition of the Enlightenment? With such “maturity” comes distance from God, who is not the God of the wise and clever but of the child (Matthew 11:25). When this maturity is supposed to have grown so great that, as the message of the Lutheran World Federation from Helsinki suggests, modern man no longer understands the question about a gracious God but rather sets up the “far more radical” question of whether God really exists, then what Luther says in the explanation of the First Commandment in the Large Catechism remains true: The question about God is the question about the God that one can “trust and believe from the heart” and who is ever our sanctuary (BSLK p.560, lines 22f.; p. 564, lines 9f.). Any other question about God is philosophy. In all of the religions upon the earth, and still today in idolatry, there is embedded, according to Luther, the great human question of life, the question concerning the gracious God. Were it the case that this question is no longer understood today, then that would not be a sign of maturity, but rather of the spiritual blindness that fosters and precedes spiritual death. Yet every pastor knows that in the reality of life, the question about the gracious God, the question about human sin and divine forgiveness breaks forth again and again and becomes the deepest question of human life.

Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors 60, 1967

I never get tired of this speed painting of Luther

Sasse: The Definition of a Reformation Festival

At the eve of the great Reformation anniversary of 1717, my ancestor Caspar Löscher of Wittenberg[1] wrote and signed the foreword to a book that, though authored by a younger colleague on the faculty, yet appeared on the second centenary (Anno Jubileo Secundo 1717): Memorial or Remembrance in Thanksgiving of the Reformation and the Ensuing First Anniversary Festival….[2] This book contains a description of the first great anniversary of the Reformation that the Evangelical (i.e. Lutheran) Church of Germany celebrated from 31 October to 2 November 1617, on the eve of the Thirty Years War. This celebration became the template for all subsequent celebrations (1667, 1717, 1817, 1917). We hear in this book about the churchly celebrations in city and territory, in Electoral Saxony, Hanover, Braunschweig-Lüneburg, Mecklenburg, Hessen, Ansbach, Württemberg; in Strassburg and the other Holy Roman imperial cities. We hear about the celebrations in the universities of Wittenberg, Rostock and Tübingen. It seems that the centennial celebrations of the universities (Wittenberg 1602, Frankfurt an der Oder 1605, Rostock 1615) also took place with due allowance upon this occasion. Yet from the beginning onward, thoughts concerning the papal jubilee year and its indulgences, together with the Old Testament jubilee year played a part in the matter, as the sermons and Festschrifts indicate. This was perhaps also the occasion for the repetition of the celebration in Electoral Saxony fifty years later in 1667. An oft-cited definition of the Reformation festival comes from Hoe von Hoenegg,[3] the senior court preacher of Dresden (having its original association with the Augustana Celebration of 1630). This definition understands the anniversary festival first as a “remembrance festival,” at which we remember a great historical event; second, as a “praise and thanksgiving festival;” third, as a “miracle festival” concerning God’s miracles; fourth, a “prayer festival” at which we “desire to pray for the preservation of the divine Word;” and fifth, as a “festival of repentance,” at which we pray for the forgiveness of our sins in the despising of the Word of God, “and that we should begin and strive for a new life with greater zeal for and devotion to his preached Word as doers of the same.” Then the festival becomes a “festival of rejoicing and jubilation in heaven” (Luke 15:10).

---

Hermann Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors 60, 1967

[1] Casper Loescher was the father of Valentin Ernst Loescher. The Father taught at Wittenberg and the family residence is marked in modern day Wittenberg. It is on what was Judenstrasse, just to the east of St. Mary’s on the south side of the street, just east of the Bugenhagen house which has just been renovated. MH

[2] „Denck-Mahl oder Danck-Gedächtnis der Reformation und der darüber entstandenen ersten Jubelfreude…“ CS

[3] Matthias Hoe von Hoenegg 1580-1645, in 1613 was the first Electoral Saxon Court preacher [Oberhofprediger] in Dresden. Had significant influence on the church in Saxony during the Thirty years war (1618-1648). Wrote against Roman Catholics and Reformed. Hoe always acted according to the principle that the Lutherans were much closer to the Roman Catholics than the Reformed. RGG3.III.390. MH

A Simple Christan Truth in a Bluegrass Song.

Happy Day in St. Louis

Celebration of Walther's 200th tonight at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis

Swiped this from Mrs. Meyer's Respublica blog. It was a wonderful evening at Concordia Seminary, celebrating CFW's 200th birthday.

Matt H.

October 25, 2011

Happy 200th birthday Rev Dr. CFW Walther

The seminary had a program, cake and champagne. We welcomed descendents of Dr. Walther, the man who was one of the founders of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the first president of Concordia Seminary.

Earlier in the day during chapel we welcomed a few 'great great's of Dr. Walther.

In the middle is Mrs. Edna Walther Wolfe, a great grand daughter of CFW and her son, a great great grandson.

Rev and Mrs. Richard Holz, another great great grandson of CFW.

The speakers for tonight were Dale and President Matt Harrison of the LCMS.

President Harrison on the left with Dr Paul Raabe chairman of the Exegetical Theology department.

Night has fallen on Walther's day but not on his continuing influence on Church and Ministry, Law and Gospel.

Posted by Diane Meyer at 08:59 PM in Concordia Seminary | Permalink |Comments (0)

Happy 200th Birthday CFW Walther!

Can we, therefore, my brethren, be depressed because we in our American pastorates are endowed with no other power than the power of the Word and especially because no other power has been granted to this assembly? Most assuredly not. This very fact must arouse us to perform the duties of our office and to carry on our present labors with great joy; for in this manner, the Church also among us preserves its true character, its character of a kingdom of heaven. In this manner, Christ remains among us as what He is, the only Lord, the only Head, the only Master; and our office and labor preserves the true apostolic form. How could we lust for a power which Christ has denied us, which no apostle has claimed, and which would deprive our congregations of the character of a true church and of the true apostolic form?

Undoubtedly our congregations were free to follow this example and to invest the synod meeting in their name with a power beside the power of the Word. But it is a different question whether it would have been wise if they had done so. I say no, because under the prevailing circumstances, we can confidently hope for auspicious success of our work, or rather of God’s work, which we are promoting, if we use only the power of God. This is the second reason why we should and can carry on our work with joy, although we have no power but the power of the Word.

Perhaps there are times and conditions when it is profitable for the Church to place the supreme deciding and regulating power into the hands of the representatives. Who, for instance, would deny that at one time, the consistories in our German fatherland were an inestimable blessing, especially when the prophecy of Isaiah was being fulfilled in the German Lutheran Church: “And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers” (49:23 KJV)? Which person acquainted a bit with history would deny that the Swedish Church grew splendidly under its episcopal constitution, especially so long as men like Laurentius Petri,2 the famous Swedish translator of the Bible and student of Luther, bore the episcopal dignity, and so long as men like the two Gustavuses3 wore the royal crown of Sweden? If, however, we glance at the conditions in which the Church finds itself here, we can hardly consider any other constitution as the most salutary except one under which the congregations are free to govern themselves but enter into a synodical organization such as the one existing among us with the help of God, for enjoying fraternal consultation, supervision, and aid to spread the kingdom of God jointly and to make possible and accomplish the aims of the Church in general.

It is true, if our congregations had granted us full power to decide and decree in their name, it apparently would have been easy for us to give all the congregations of our ter- ritory the form of truly Lutheran congregations, whereas with our present constitution, our hands appear to be tied. But this only seems to be the case. Even though some con- gregations may use the liberty they possess of rejecting our recommendations even if they are salutary, thereby they indeed deprive themselves of a blessing. But what would be the result if such congregations by their entrance into our organization had obligated themselves to submit to all of our orders? The exercise of our power would have laid the foundation for constant dissatisfaction, for constantly reviving fear of hierarchical efforts, and thus for endless friction. In a republic, as the united States of America is, where the feeling of being free and independent of man is nourished so strongly from childhood, the inevitable result would be that any restriction beyond the limits drawn by God Himself would be empty shells, and our apparent growth would often be nothing but a process of becoming stiff and dying in a great mass of lifeless forms. Our chief battle would soon center about the execution of manufactured, external human ordinances and institutions and would swallow up the true blessed battle for the real treasure of the Church, for the purity and unity of doctrine. In a word, we would lose sight of our beautiful aim of build- ing the true Church, which is not an external scaffold but the kingdom of God in the heart of men, and at best ourselves bring about our early dissolution. to be sure, there are religious organizations in this republic that, in spite of their strictly representative form of government, are being built without antagonism and are prospering in their manner, but why? Because the congregations are not permitted to come to a knowledge of their liberty and their consciences are bound in favor of their form of government by false doctrine. In our Evangelical Lutheran Church, however, we must preach to our congregations that the choice of the form of government for a church is an inalienable part of their Christian liberty and that Christians as members of the Church are subject to no power in the world except the clear Word of the living God. There the above-mentioned disastrous results are certainly to be feared from any restriction of the liberty of the congregations, especially in a republic such as ours is.

We can, however, certainly hope for altogether different results if we ask nothing un-conditionally of our congregations except submission to the Word, if we therefore leave it to them to govern themselves and assist them only with our advice.

C.F.W. Walther, 1848 Synod Address. At Home in the House of My Fathers.

2 Brother of Olavus Petri. Born in 1499, first Lutheran Archbishop of Sweden in 1531. Introduced the Lutheran order of service in 1571, died in 1573.

3 GustavAdolf(1594–1632), king of Sweden, son of GustavVasa. He was the great defender of Lutheranism during the Thirty Years War. Killed in battle in Germany at Luetzen on November 6, 1632. His body lay in state at St. Mary’s in Wittenberg on its journey back to Sweden. Gustav Vasa (1496–1560) became king of Sweden in 1523. He appointed Olavus Petri preacher in Stockholm and commissioned Laurentius Petri to translate the New testament. He also sent the first missionaries to the Laplanders.

If I could wave a magic wand over the Missouri Synod....

Sasse: "What is said to the church is said to the ministry, and vice versa."

That the great freedom of the Reformation is truly the liberty of the gospel is demonstrated first of all by the fact that in the New Testament the potestas clavium [power of the keys] is not conferred once but three times: Matthew 16 to Peter, John 20 to all the Apostles, and Matthew 18 to the entire ekklesia. These bestowals dare not be separated from each other. Neither may one place one into the foreground at the expense of the others and consider that the true form. And when Jesus gives to the twelve His commission to preach the gospel to every creature, and through Baptism to make disciples of all nations, when at the Last Supper He instructs them, “This do in remembrance of me!” then who are the twelve? They are the first to stand in the office of the ministry. From them proceeds the ministerium docendi evangelii et porrigendi sacramenta [the ministry of the teaching of the gospel and administering the sacraments] But they are at the same time the church, the ekklesia, the representatives of this new “People of God” of the Last Days. Thus it is simply impossible in the New Testament to separate the office of the ministry and the church from each other. What is said to the church is said to the ministry, and vice versa. The ministry does not stand above the congregation, but invariably within it.

How does the church of Antioch, Acts 13, come to commission Paul and Barnabas for their mission work? They had been commissioned by the Lord long before. What could the laying on of hands in this congregation give to Paul that he did not already have by virtue of his personal mission, through having the direct mandate of his exalted Lord? And yet this mission and this laying on of hands are deliberately repeated here. The office of the ministry and the congregation belong inseparably together.

Hermann Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors VIII, 1949.

Marquart: "Christian conscience cannot be delegated."

"As G.K. Chesterton said in another connection: The experts must appear and practice before a jury of ordinary men and women. If the experts cannot convince the jury, they lose, and deservedly so. If ordinary matters of life and death - of which Chesterton spoke - cannot simply be left to the experts, how much less that holy truth on which eternal life itself depends? Christian conscience cannot be delegated (Mt. 7:15; 25:1-13;Rom. 14:23). But the 'jury' must of course decide according to the 'law,' that is, the revealed Word of God, and not according to personal whim."

Kurt Marquart

The Church, p. 150.

Game 2 Blues

Sasse: "One thing, indeed, the Lord has given His church"

One thing, indeed, the Lord has given His church, something that does not pertain to its bene esse but to its esse [its well-bing but to its very being]: “Ut hanc fidem consequamur, institutum est ministerium docendi evangelii et porrigendi sacramenta,” [That this faith may be obtained, the ministry of teaching the gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted] as the Augustana states, Article V. In order that we may attain this justifying faith of which the preceding article speaks, the Gospel must be preached and the Sacraments must be administered, and for this purpose God has established the ministry, the service [Dienst] by which this is done. But wherever the means of grace are properly administered, there, according to the Divine promise that the Word shall not return to Him void, is also the ecclesia, the congregatio sanctorum, the congregation of saints, of sinners justified.

The manner in which the congregation shall organize itself is prescribed just as little as the form which is taken on by the ministerium ecclesiasticum. The Apostles came to realize that they would be better able to fulfill the duties of their spiritual office if they would be relieved of the obligation of ministering to the poor and administering financial affairs. That is how the supplementary office of deacons originated. But the church was church even without this office. That is how the church of all the ages may, because of the needs of the times, create certain auxiliary offices, e.g., the office of the episcopate, superintendency, or whatever else one may mention. But the existence of all these “offices” is justified only in so far as they serve the one great ministry of preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments. A bishop may have the function of administering the affairs of a large diocese. The underlying purpose, however, can only be to create opportunity for the ministerium ecclesiasticum. His true office is that of a pastor, even though he be pastor pastorum. Iure humano [by human arrangement] he may have the duties of a superintendency. Only the Office of the preaching of reconciliation [das Amt, das die Versöhnung predigt] is iure divino [by divine right].

Hermann Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors VIII, 1949

Cards regroup for prayer after Game 2

Sasse: "The true greatness of Luther and the boldness of his basic theological principle"

Of every other church one may say with the familiar words of Calvin that it professes an ordo, quo Dominus ecclesiam gubernari voluit [an order by which the Lord wills his church to be governed] . That is true of the Catholic Churches of the east and west, as well as of the Reformed denominations. Opinions differ only as to what this ordo may be: the universal monarchy of the Popes, or the episcopo-synodical administration of the Eastern and Anglican Churches; the governing of a church by a senate of presbyters, among whom there may be no difference of rank, or the autonomy of the individual Congregational or Baptist congregations (to name but a few of the church polities for which it is claimed that they are prescribed in the New Testament). The true greatness of Luther and the boldness of his basic theological principle of strict separation of law and gospel becomes clear when one observes how, apart from all these other possibilities, he travels his lonely way: Christ has given His church no law de constituenda ecclesia. Every form of church government is feasible which leaves room for a proper administration of the means of grace, which imposes no restrictions upon their administration.

Hermann Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors VIII, 1949

Sasse: As the office of the ministry fails, so also the congregation, and vice versa.

And among all the Lutheran bodies there is perhaps none that makes so much of the office of the ministry as the Missouri Synod, in which the individual congregation so definitely stands at the center of all ecclesiastical thinking. The office of the ministry and the congregation are like inter-communicating channels. The life of the one is also the life of the other. As the office of the ministry fails, so also the congregation, and vice versa.

Hermann Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors VIII, July 1949

Sasse on Call and Ordination

This becomes quite clear when one asks how the conferral of the office of the ministry is brought about. There is a vocatio immediata. There God alone does the calling, without the agency of men. That was the case with the apostles, prophets, and teachers, if we may here leave out of consideration the recipients of the gift of healing and other special charismata. Christ alone can make a man an apostle. When a replacement for Judas had to be chosen He did it by lot. God has reserved it to Himself alone to call men to be prophets. Neither in the Old nor New Testament does it appear that men can make any contribution to this end. In the estimation of the primitive church the same situation prevailed concerning the office of the “teacher,” the charismatically endowed interpreter of the Scriptures, which in those days meant the Old Testament. These offices which thus originated out of a vocatio immediata belong to the entire church. The incumbents may exercise the functions of their office anywhere. The church, the congregation, need concern itself about one question only: whether it may recognize the charisma of the respective “minister,” or whether it sees in him a false apostle, a false prophet, or a false teacher,—a difficult problem, to be solved only by the charismatic gift of “discerning the spirits.”

In addition there is, however, also a vocatio mediata for the ministerial offices of an individual congregation. These also are given by the Lord Christ, but He does this through men. The bishops and deacons which according to Philippians 1 were already to be found in the Pauline congregations were chosen by the congregation. In such places where, in keeping with the custom of the Synagogue, the institution of presbyters was retained, that caste of the “honored ones” who were entitled to the protokathedriae, the chief seats in the synagogues (Matthew 23:6), there the congregation likewise determined who the members of this body of elders should be. There were evidently some congregations served by bishops and deacons, and others with a presbyteral organization (Acts 20:17ff.). Paul did not consider it worthwhile to eliminate this diversity, which does not begin to grow into a unity until the time of the pastoral letters. Nor does the New Testament tell us who elected these leaders of the congregations, whether the entire congregation or—as it was in Rome in the days when the First Epistle of Clement was written—the “honored ones,” a part of the congregation, in which case the subsequent approval of the congregation would however be required.

Nothing is more misleading than to impose the standards of a modern political order upon the administration of the New Testament church. The ekklesia is not a democracy in our sense of the word, not a mass of individuals each of whom is possessed of the same rights and privileges. Nor should it be called an aristocracy. It is an articulated body with a graded structure of organization and authority. There are grades even in the college of presbyters, which in other respects is a unit. For here special mention is made of “the elders that rule well . . . especially they who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Timothy 5:12), who were therefore bishops at the same time. In our previous letter we established the fact that the “laymen,” the Christian people, also constitute a certain estate, followed by that of the catechumens and others subordinate to an even greater degree. Reception into the estates and offices [Stände und Ämter] of the congregation was generally by laying on of hands and with prayer. And once more it may either be an individual person like the Apostle Paul who performs this laying on of hands (2 Timothy 1:6), or the Presbytery (1 Timothy 4:14), or both, as is probable in the case of Timothy, or an entire congregation (probably through representatives, Acts 13:1).

One should note carefully that the idea of a succession in the laying on of hands did not yet exist in the second century. For the oldest extant order of succession, that of the congregation at Rome as given by Irenaeus [d. ca. 200], does not refer to a succession of consecrations, but lists the incumbents of the episcopal office, without consideration of the question who may have laid his hands upon each individual bishop. Here again a considerable variety of custom obviously prevailed, at least in the beginning. None of the Catholic theories of consecration can claim the support of the New Testament beyond the fact that it teaches that a certain charismatic endowment for the office [ein Amts-Charisma] is conferred by the laying on of hands with the essential concurrent prayer in the Name of Jesus.

In this connection it is to be observed that the laying on of hands, which plays an important role in the primitive church (Hebrews 6:2), and which did not only occur in connection with the formal installation into office, is not essential to the ordination (John 20:21ff.), that is, that it has no special mandate of Christ. It is rather a rite taken over from the Old Testament, in which the example of the ordination of Joshua by Moses (Numbers 27:18; Deuteronomy 34:9) was appropriately applied to the installation of the official servants of the church. This rite is neither a sacrament nor a mere gesture, but the outward sign of an intercessory prayer for the Holy Spirit and His gracious gifts, prayer which has the assurance that it will be heard. For in the final analysis it is God, it is the Lord Christ, it is the Holy Spirit who is acting through men, acting through an individual, through an official group, or through the entire congregation (cf. Acts 20:28), or who occasionally extra ordinem, grants His gifts directly and confers an office with them. Therefore, as our Lutheran fathers saw correctly, it is impossible to establish an essential difference between call and ordination, perhaps even to build this difference up into a divisive issue. God calls men into His service, generally through men. It makes no difference how it is done. Whether it be an individual that is acting, or an official group, or the ekklesia assembled for the worship of God: it is all done in the name of the church, the entire church, which is the Body of Christ, and thereby in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Hermann Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors VIII, 1949

The Anti-Mustache

"Don’t take yourself too seriously. And don’t be too serious about not taking yourself too seriously." – Howard Ogden

A Very Interesting History of My Favorite Prayer: The Litany

The following comes from A New History of the Book of Common Prayer. Luther's contribution to the English Litany is noted. Click on the link if you want to see the text with the marginal headings.

M.H.

THE LITANY AND OCCASIONAL PRAYERS AND THANKSGIVINGS. THE term Litany (λιτανεια) belongs properly to any solemn form of entreaty, but in Christian usage it has gained a specialized meaning as the result of a somewhat complex history.	Previous chapter The Litany
In the East, as early as the IVth century, the word was used to describe penitential services. S. Basil speaks of these as being in use in his day at Caesarea (c. 375), but admits that they were innovations, and not as old as the days of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus (254).1 The term, thus employed, denoted days or acts or services of penitence or of supplication; and when it made its way into the West it was the equivalent of ‘Rogation.’ This is the first point in the history of the term.	Origin of the term, in the East,
A second point was reached a little later when, during the stress of the Arian conflict, and as a counter-blow to Arian propaganda, S. Chrysostom introduced processions at Constantinople (398), accompanied by responsorial singing.2 This move proved so successful and popular that the custom was retained permanently; and processions were thenceforward used as a method of solemn supplication, joined often with fasting and special prayer in time of emergency.3 This, too, penetrated into the West, and the best known instances have been already quoted in describing4 how both at Rome and at Vienne under special emergencies solemn days of intercession were appointed and observed by a supplicatory procession, and were not merely observed for the occasion, as had hitherto been the case, but retained a permanent place in the Kalendar; in Rome the Greek name was the one in use, and the procession of S. Mark’s Day was called the Litania Maior, in contradistinction to other lesser Litaniæ or penitential observances. In Gaul the Latin term Rogation was more commonly used, and it has survived still as the name for the most important of the Rogationes, viz., the three days preceding Ascension Day which Mamertus appointed.5	and in the West.
So far the only evidence as to the character of the service used on such occasions is that which comes from Constantinople as to responsorial singing. It is clear that such a form of singing would naturally lend itself well to use in procession, where the various petitions could be simply and effectively responded to by the moving crowd: accordingly it is natural to find that in the West too at theLitaniæ or Rogations psalms were sung, probably responsorially, and formed the main part of the service.6	Nature of the service.
It was not, however, processional psalmody that was to be associated ultimately with the name of Litany, but a different, though kindred, liturgical form. There had grown up in the East, probably in the IVth century, a type of responsorial prayer very similar to responsorial psalmody. Prayer in this form was already a prominent feature of the Eucharist, and it has remained so in the East. In the West, on the contrary, the use of it in the Liturgy has become very restricted; but on the other hand, it has developed greatly outside the Liturgy, and has become the independent and self-contained form of service, now known as Litany.	The Litany form of prayer in dialogue
As regards the use in the Eucharist of this form of responsorial prayer the form in the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions is typical.7 The deacon bids the prayer or names the subjects of petition, and the people answer to each ‘Kyrie eleison,’ ‘Lord have mercy.’8 A series of petitions is said thus for each of the classes of worshippers — catechumens, energumens, &c. — as they are dismissed before the Service of the Faithful begins, together with other petitions for peace, protection, forgiveness and a happy death, appended to those for the catechumens. The Mass of the Faithful; then begins with a continuation of the same litany in a more general and developed form.9 This Deacon’s litany, or Ektene,10appears in a similar shape but generally on a: reduced scale in a similar position in most of the Eastern Liturgies, and accompanied by the same response.	In the Eucharist. Eastern Liturgies.
In the Roman Liturgy there seems never to have been a very extended use of this responsorial form of prayer: with the Kyrie as refrain: but it was in use there, being: probably imported in the Vth century, and formed the introduction to the service. Already in S. Gregory’s time11the method of performance had altered, and ‘Christe eleison’ had been introduced as a response side by side with ‘Kyrie eleison’; but also the process had already begun by which the long string of varying petitions fell away, till nothing was left but the responses; and ultimately these were restricted in number till the nine-fold Kyrie of the mediæval mass was all that survived.12	Roman
The Gallican Rite was more conservative and kept more closely to the Eastern customs, and litanies with varying petitions like the Greek Ektene are found surviving in part of the Ambrosian13 and Mozarabic liturgies.14	Gallican.
So far there is no sign of this responsorial form of prayer being anything but stationary, though mention has been made of processions connected with the observance ofLitaniæ and with responsorial psalmody. But the next step is a very obvious one. The word Litany was in use in the West for two kindred things, a penitential procession, and a form of responsorial prayer of which the refrain wasKyrie eleison:15 nothing was more natural than that they should coalesce, i. e. that the Litany, as a peculiar type of prayer, should become identified with the Litany as a penitential procession. And thus was reached the compound mediæval use of the term ‘Litany,’ as meaning a form of prayer in dialogue, either stationary or processional, and for either regular or occasional use.	The Litany form and the Litany days coalesce.
Both the stationary and processional uses were exemplified in the early Liturgy: the Kyrie, as has been already shown, is the remains of the former: but further it is to be noted that on the days when a solemn procession preceded the stational Mass at Rome, the Litany was sung as the Pope came near to the Church where the Mass was to be said: this use of a Litany in procession before Mass spread elsewhere, and continued in a shrunken form down to the Reformation in the shape of the Procession about the Church introductory to High Mass on Sundays and Festivals. These two uses of the Litany were too much alike to exist side by side simultaneously. In early days theKyrie was dropped and the processional Litany retained;16but later the Kyrie became a fixed feature of the Liturgy and the procession preceding it was altered so as to be unlike the Kyrie.	Survival at Mass.
Besides this regular use of the Litany in connexion with the Liturgy it is to be observed that in other special services, both Roman and Gallican, the Litany form won and kept a place, as for example in the Ordination service and kindred services, the Consecration of the Font on Easter Even, or the Dedication of a Church. Besides these uses there was also the occasional use on such days as those already described; in Lent, and at times of special emergency: and such were of continual recurrence, so that a Rogation or Processional Litany became the normal form of supplication for special needs.	Occasional use of the Litany.
As regards the form of the Litany, it is clear that the Roman type went through much transformation. When the varying petitions were dropped, only the Kyrie eleisonremained; and there is an instance of the use of nothing else but the repetition a hundred times of the three formulas Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison for a processional Litany.17 But in other cases the varying petitions were not dropped, only new forms of response to them came into use: to one class, Ora pro nobis, Pray for us; to another, Libera nos domine, Good Lord deliver us; to another, Te rogamus audi nos, We beseech Thee to hear us. Petitions of the first of these classes multiplied especially rapidly, until the Litany threatened to become little else but an invocation of saints. In other cases the Litany form was dropped altogether, and there were occasions when the service during the Procession, as early even as the time of S. Gregory, consisted of chanting a number of anthems.18 And it was thus, as Beda relates.19 that S. Augustine and his company of missionaries entered Canterbury, chanting what was called a Litany, but which was really nothing else but one of these processional anthems.	Transfor-mation.
The Roman form of the Litany came early to England and can be traced from early times. The following form, belonging to the eleventh century, is an example of the use of the Anglo-Saxon Church:20 — Kyrie eleïson, Christe eleïson. Christe audi nos. Pater de cœlis Deus, Miserere nobis. Fili Redemptor mundi Deus, Miserere nobis. Spiritus Sancte Deus, Miserere nobis. Sancta Trinitas unus Deus, Miserere nobis.21 [Then follow a long series of invocations, beginning “Sancta Maria ora,” and ending “Omnes sancti, orate pro nobis.”] Propitius esto, Parce nobis Domine. Ab omni malo, Libera nos Domine. Ab insidiis diaboli, Libera nos Domine. A peste superbiæ, Libera nos Domine. A carnalibus desideriis, Libera nos Domine. Ab omnibus immunditiis mentis et corporis, Libera nos Domine. A persecutione paganorum et omnium inimicorum nostrorum, Libera nos Domine. A ventura ira, Libera nos Domine. A subita et æterna morte, Libera nos Domine. Per mysterium sanctæ Incarnationis Tuæ, Libera nos Domine. Per crucem et passionem Tuam, Libera nos Domine. Per sanctam resurrectionem Tuam, Libera nos Domine. Per admirabilem ascensionem Tuam, Libera nos Domine. Per gratiam Sancti Spiritus Paracliti, Libera nos Domine. A pœnis inferni, Libera nos Domine. In die judicii, Libera nos Domine. Peccatores, Te rogamus, audi nos. Ut pacem et concordiam nobis dones, Te rogamus, audi nos. Ut sanctam Ecclesiam Tuam regere et defensare digneris, Te rogamus, audi nos. Ut domnum apostolicum et omnes gradus ecclesiæ in sancta religione conservare digneris, Te rogamus, audi nos. Ut archiepiscopum nostrum et omnem congregationem illi commissam in sancta religione conservare digneris, Te rogamus, audi nos. Ut locum istum et omnes habitantes in eo visitare et consolari digneris, Te rogamus, audi nos. Ut omnibus benefactoribus nostris æterna bona tribuas, Te rogamus, audi nos. Ut remissionem omnium peccatorum nostrorum nobis donares, Te rogamus, audi nos. Ut animas nostras et animas parentum nostrorum ab æterna damnatione eripias, Te rogamus audi nos. Ut nobis miseris misericors misereri digneris, Te rogamus. Ut inimicis nostris pacem caritatemque largiri digneris, Te rogamus, audi nos. Ut fructus terræ dare et conservare digneris, Te rogamus. Ut fratribus nostris et omnibus fidelibus infirmis sanitatem mentis et corporis donare digneris, Te rogamus, audi nos. Ut cunctis fidelibus defunctis requiem æternam donare digneris, Te rogamus, audi nos. Ut nos exaudire digneris, Te rogamus, audi nos. Fili Dei, Te rogamus, audi nos. Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, Parce nobis Domine. Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Christe, audi nos. Kyrie eleison. Christe eleison. Kyrie eleison.	Litany of the Anglo-Saxon Church.
Some similar form was in universal use in England up to the Reformation. It formed an integral part of certain services, for example the Blessing of the Font on Easter Eve or the Ordination of Deacons and Priests: it was also said kneeling daily throughout Lent after Terce was ended. Further, the Litany was also used as an independent processional service, not only on the Rogation Days and the Litania Maior (S. Mark’s Day) but also on the Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent and on special occasions when there was a call to public prayer. The old features thus survived: the Litany was sometimes processional and sometimes not, and its use was in part regular and in part occasional.22	Mediæval Use.
It was a special occasion calling for public prayer, which first produced an authoritative English translation:23 but in preparing the Litany for the Processions in 1544 Cranmer was not content to produce a hasty or ill-considered piece of work. It is clear that he had before him not merely the current Latin Litany as used through Lent or on the Rogation Days with the different form prescribed for the dying, but also the form of Litany put out by Luther in 1529,24 which had already been utilised in Marshall’s Primer. There are also signs that he turned to Eastern sources and used the Deacon’s Litany in the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom.25 Thus he did not merely translate the old Latin form but enriched it from foreign sources.26	The English Litany.
	The Invocations.
The old Western Litanies generally commenced with the form Kyrie eleison, each part of it being once or thrice repeated.27 This was omitted in preparing the Litany of 1544, and thus an important point of connexion with the early history of Litany-prayers was lost.28 At the same time the words miserable sinners were added in the invocations of the Trinity, and also the words, proceeding from the Father and the Son were inserted as a descriptive clause in the third invocation, to balance those in the first two invocations. These changes, and the mode of repeating the clauses whole, instead of saying each as an invocation and response, are special features of the English Litany.29 Next in the old Litanies came the invocation of Saints, beginning with S. Mary, and ending, after a great number of clauses, with Omnes sancti: Orate pro nobis. In Luther’s Litany these were entirely omitted. Cranmer was at first not quite so drastic, but the number of invocations was greatly three such clauses were retained. They stood as follows:— Saint Mary, mother of God, our Saviour Jesu Christ, pray for us. All holy angels and archangels, and all holy orders of blessed spirits, pray for us. All holy patriarchs, and prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, and virgins, and all the blessed company of heaven, pray for us. Each clause was repeated by the choir, in the same way as the preceding invocations of the Trinity. In the, revision of this Litany for the King’s Primer (1545) these three clauses still appeared, but only the words pray for us were given to the choir. The clauses were entirely omitted in the Litany of Edward VI. The long petition which comes between the· Invocations and the Deprecations which follow them, was newly inserted in 1544, in the place of the old and short clause,Propitius esto: while the response Parce nobis Dominewas retained. It is a translation of the greater part of the anthem assigned to the Penitential Psalms, which stood in the Breviary immediately before the Litany.30
Then follow, in all the Litanies, the Deprecations, varying both in phrase and number, but preserving a general uniformity of subject; in the Latin form they were given commonly in single clauses, each of which was followed byLibera nos Domine. Cranmer not only selected his Deprecations from his various sources and added to them, but with more doubtful wisdom he combined a number of petitions together under one response: this change made a gain in brevity and rapidity, but sacrificed the simplicity and directness of the old Litany-form. Two points call for special notice.31 In 1544 the last of the series contained the clause, ‘from the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities,’ after ‘privy conspiracy :’ this held its ground through the reign of Edward, but disappeared in Queen Mary’s Litany. Secondly, it is to be observed with regard to the same deprecation that the words ‘rebellion’ and ‘schism’ were inserted at the last revision of the Prayer Book in 1661.	The Deprecations.
The next portion, comprising the Obsecrations as a plea for mercy by or through the redemptive work of Christ, is formed from the same sources by a similar process of compression. The next clause, ‘In all time of our tribulation, &c.,’ stands alone: it was formed by combining four separate clauses of Luther’s Litany of which the first two were novel.	The Obsecrations.
The form of the Intercessions which now follow is common to all the Litanies, but the subjects vary considerably, and the signs of the influence of the Lutheran Litany become far more prominent in the English service. After the suffrage for the Church, those for the ecclesiastical orders usually came first, and were followed by those for the prince and for Christian people.32 Yet the intercessions for rulers of the Church and of the State were occasionally transposed, and in 1544 the series of petitions for the King was set next after that for the Church: and this order remains. The clergy were described by Cranmer, following Luther, under the names of ‘bishops, pastors, and ministers of the Church;’ this was altered at the last revision to ‘bishops, priests, and deacons,’ — an expression more distinctly opposed to Presbyterian notions of the Christian ministry. The Prayer for the peace of all nations is characteristic of our Litany and of the circumstances which gave rise to it. The Sarum Litany prays, ‘to give peace and concord to all kings and princes,’ and the phraseology seems to have been adopted by Cranmer though modified. The ancient Anglo-Saxon Litany is remarkable in this respect, that it contains a suffrage ‘for our enemies.’ The remaining suffrages are almost entirely drawn from Luther’s Litany, but the phrase ‘in danger, necessity and tribulation’ seems to come from the Liturgy of Constantinople, and possibly the succeeding, petition as well: and the petition for the fruits of the: earth is alike both in Luther and in the Sarum Litany. The last suffrage has nothing corresponding to it in any other Litany:33 it is a beautiful summary, expressing what we ought to feel at the conclusion of such petitions as have preceded: it is intended to supply any omission of a request, or of a confession, which ought to have been made: a prayer for repentance, forgiveness, and the grace of amendment of life.34 The Invocations which follow are according to the old form.35 The Litany proper then ends with the triple Kyrie eleison and the Lord’s Prayer: the former primitive feature of the Litany survives only here in the English form. In the old form a number of suffrages were appended, introducing a Collect; but Cranmer here deserts Sarum in favour of Luther’s Litany, where the present versicle, response, and prayer, ‘O God, merciful Father, &c.,’ occur in this position without preliminary suffrages, but with additional prayers added after the Collect. Cranmer took these three36 and left the rest, thus reducing this section to very small dimensions.	The Intercessions.
	Versicles and Prayer.
The following words, ‘O Lord arise,’ begin a new section, but owing to the accidental omission of Amen at the end of the preceding Collect37 the fact is obscured. This new section is one which was a special intercession in time of war. It opens with the processional anthem and psalm verse with which it was customary to begin the Procession,38 and then passes at once to the special versicles. Two changes were made in the process of adaptation er the anthem. First in translating the verse of the Psalm, Cranmer completed the sense by adding the remainder of the sentence, which in the Latin forms the second verse; the whole passage is Ps. xliv. 1 in our translation. Also the order was changed, and the anthem with a slight variation in translation was made to precede instead of following theGloria patri. It is difficult to explain the latter change, as it makes no improvement in the sense, while it entirely destroys the form.39	The intercession in time of war. Anthem.
The Versicles were taken from the occasional portion added to the Litany in time of war:40 unlike the suffrages above, they were sung by the choir not the officiant, but they led up to a final sacerdotal versicle and Collect, said by him. The distinction is still retained here; from 1549 to 1661 this couplet was marked ‘The Versicle,’ and ‘The Answer,’ but it is now in each case marked as ‘Priest’ and ‘Answer.’ This particular versicle is unprecedented in this position,41 but the Collect (with a different sacerdotal versicle) was appointed to be said at the close of the Litany on the last of the Rogation Days.42 It was freely adapted for the present position, and the intercession of the saints was no longer mentioned in it.	Versicles,
	and collect.
The closing section of the Litany of 1544 consisted of an appendix of Collects, just as the old Litanies of the English Church ended, for the most part, with a group of seven Collects.43 Three of these were retained here by Cranmer, viz. the first, second and fifth, and two additions were made: the first of these ran thus: Grant, we beseech thee, O Almighty God, that we in our trouble put our whole confidence upon thy mercy, that we may against all adversity be defended under thy protection. Grant this, &c. The second addition was the Prayer of S. Chrysostom, which no doubt Cranmer noticed when he turned to the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom for help in the preparation of the Litany:44 and with this the Litany of 1544 ended.	Additions.
A close study of the text of the various subsequent editions of the English Litany reveals many inconsistencies and small changes which are merely bewildering because they do not show any relationship between the successive issues. All that can be said is that none of these editions was copied exactly from any other. The Litany in the Primer of 1545 differs in small points from that of 1544:45some points of resemblance to these Henrician editions appear in the first Edwardine Ordinal which are not in the First Prayer Book.46 The First and Second Prayer Books each brought innovations: those due to the latter were mainly reproduced in the Primer of 1553.47 The Marian Litany, in some respects innovated, and in others reverted to the Henrician forms.48 The three early forms of Elizabethan Litany were similarly eclectic49: so that no solid ground is reached till the Elizabethan Prayer Book.	Textual changes:
But among all these minutiae several more important: changes stand out clear. First, the clause against ‘the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable (’abominable’ in 1545) enormities,’ which was introduced in the Henrician Litany of 1544, was excised in the Marian Litany, and after reappearing in one of the tentative Elizabethan editions, disappeared finally at the Elizabethan Prayer Book. Secondly, the three invocations of Saints, also characteristic of the Henrician Litanies, though retained down to 1548,50 disappeared in 1549. Thirdly, while the appendix of Collects varied so much in successive editions, both in its own contents and in its relation to other parts of the Book, that it is not worth while to attempt to describe the variations, it is worth while to notice that the new Collect added in 1544 was used in 1549 to enlarge the Collect, ‘We humbly beseech Thee, O Father, &c.,’ and so ceased to have a separate existence.51 The prayer of S. Chrysostom is the only one of the collection which has uniformly retained its place: of the rest some have disappeared, some have been placed elsewhere. ‘The Grace’ was first appended to it as the closing Benediction in 1559.52	three of importance.
The English Litany was put out originally as a separate service; both in 1544 and 154553 it was used as a procession on the accustomed days, i. e., Wednesdays and Fridays, similarly to the Lenten use of the Litany; it was first brought into permanent relation with other services when the Edwardine Injunctions54 ordered that it should be sung immediately before High Mass by the priests with other of the quire kneeling in the midst of the church, and should supersede for the time all other processions or Litanies in church or churchyard. This was in itself a considerable change, for the Litany had long ceased to be a normal preliminary of Mass, and was so only upon the Rogation days,55 or such special occasions as the Processions in time of war, when a Votive Mass naturally followed. Moreover, the new Injunction abolished the ordinary Sunday Procession before High Mass, which was a popular form of service, including in some places prayers in English, especially the solemn Bidding prayer.56 It was now intended, (perhaps not without some reminiscence on Cranmer’s part of primitive and Eastern custom) to prefix to Mass a more complete form of vernacular intercession. The Litany was ready to hand and had been proved successful in this position by constant use on Wednesdays and Fridays at intervals during the preceding three years.57 The only inconvenience that had been found was that some disorder attended its recital in procession,58 and therefore in this respect a change was made, and the Litany was to be sung kneeling.59	The use of the Litany : occasional, regular before High Mass.
When the First Prayer Book was issued it did not originally include the Litany, but only a rubric that upon Wednesdays and Fridays it should be sung according to the Injunction and should be followed by at least the Ante-communion Service.60 This implies that the people were still to use it as ‘a Procession on their knees.’ The earliest editions had the Litany appended as a supplement, while in later editions it was regularly incorporated in the book and stood next after the Communion. It was clearly not intended that the Litany should wholly sweep away the old Processions, for a rubric at the end of the book provided thus: Also upon Christmas Day, Easter Day, the Ascension Day, Whit Sunday, and the feast of the Trinity may be used, any part of the Holy Scripture hereafter to be certainly limited and appointed in the stead of the Litany.This shows that Cranmer had not yet given up his hopes of a Processional in English.61 But in fact the work was never accomplished. In the Second Book the Litany was moved to its present place, and it remains as a solitary and stationary ‘Procession’ preparatory to the Eucharist. The rubric of 1552 merely ordered it for Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays and at other times when it shall be commanded by the Ordinary. The 18th Elizabethan Injunction repeated the Edwardine Injunction with slight verbal changes, again expressly connecting the Litany with ‘the time of communion of the sacrament,’ while the 48th ordered the saying of the Litany and prayers in Church on Wednesdays and Fridays with no mention of the Ante-communion service.	In the First Prayer Book. The Second.
In time the connexion with the Liturgy was lost sight of: this was mainly the result of the massing together of three services into one, as when Grindal, archbishop of York, in his visitation (1571), directed ‘the minister not to pause or stay between the Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion, but to continue and say the Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion, or the Service appointed to be said when there was no Communion, together, without any intermission: to the intent the people might continue together in prayer, and hearing the Word of God; and not depart out of the church during all the time of the whole Divine Service.’62	The connexion with the Liturgy obscured
The revisers of 1661 went a step further by ordering the Litany to be sung after Morning Prayer:63 this made little difference64 so long as the services were still massed together; but the recent custom of subdividing the services has seriously broken the connexion, and now in many places the Sunday Eucharist is deprived of its proper introductory Procession.65	and almost forgotten.
The only occasional use of the Litany prescribed in the Prayer book is that in the Ordinal, where it has been a feature of the service from very early times. Uniformity has brought it about that the Litany there shall have the same appendix of prayers for a time of war as is included in the regular Litany. It may be doubted how far this feature is a desirable part of the regular normal course, and whether the Litany would not be better suited for general use without it: but certainly it is an especially inappropriate appendix to the service on the special occasion of an ordination.66 The one form of Litany is really used in three different ways, (1) as the Procession before the Eucharist on Sundays, (2) as a votive service on the old Station days of Wednesday and Friday,67 and (3) as a special act of pleading in Ordinations: and it is all the more necessary to keep the distinction of use clearly in mind, because there is only the one form available for the three different purposes.68	The use in the Ordinal.
The Occasional Prayers are entirely English compositions; they were collected in this place for the first time in 1661, but some of them had already appeared elsewhere in previous editions. The prayers for Rain and Fair Weather were appended to the Communion Service of 1549. The Prayers In the time of Dearth and Famine were added in 1552; the second form was left out in 1559, and only restored, with alterations, in 1661. The Prayer In the time of War and Tumults belongs to 1552, and also that In the time of any common Plague or Sickness. It is probable that all these forms had their origin in the necessities of the time.69 The Prayers to be said every day in the Ember Weeks were added at the last revision. They are peculiar to the English ritual.70 The Prayer that may be said after any of the former is as old as the Gregorian Sacramentary,71and in an English form has had a place in the Primer as long as that book can be traced, standing with the Collects at the end of the Litany.72 It was, however, omitted during the reign of Edward VI., but restored in the Litanies at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth (1558 and 1559). The Prayer for the High Court of Parliament was composed most probably by Laud, when Bishop of S. David’s. It first appeared in an ‘Order of Fasting,’ in 1625, and again in 1628 in a special form of prayer ‘necessary to be used in these dangerous times of war.’ In these early forms it is almost verbally like the present prayer, only somewhat longer; it also contains the words ‘most religious and gracious king,’73 which have been commonly supposed to have been introduced as a compliment to Charles II. In 1661 the Prayer was inserted in a special form for a Fast-day on the 12th of June, and again in the following January; and at the same time it was placed by the Convocation in the Book of Common Prayer.74 The Prayer for all Conditions of Men was probably composed by Dr. Peter Gunning, Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge, and successively Bishop of Chichester and Ely,75 In its original shape it is supposed to have been longer and was designed as a substitute for the Litany, no doubt to meet the objections of the Puritans.76 The Convocation, however, retained the Litany, reduced this prayer to its present proportions and adopted it as an alternative to the Litany, without, however, altering the word finally, which seems to be needlessly introduced in so short a form. Before this, no general intercessory prayer occurred in the service, except on those mornings when the Litany was said.	Occasional Prayers. Prayers and Thanksgiving’s upon several occasions.
Praise is an essential part of divine worship. Hence we retain, throughout the services, Doxologies, Psalms, and Canticles. But these do not include that particular thanksgiving for extraordinary deliverances, or indeed for daily mercies, which is due to the author and giver of all good things. Hence some particular thanksgivings77 were annexed to the Litany, at the revision of the . Prayer Book after the Hampton Court Conference, by order of James I., under the title of ‘An enlargement of thanksgiving for diverse benefits, by way of explanation.’78 These were thanksgivings for Rain, for Fair Weather, for Plenty, for Peace and Victory, and for Deliverance from the Plague in two forms.79 At the last revision, after the restoration of the Monarchy, another special form of thanksgiving was added for Restoring Publick Peace at Home.80 Its language must have been felt to be strikingly appropriate, when read with the restored Common Prayer, after such a mournful period of civil discord. At the same time the Convocation accepted a form of General Thanksgiving, composed by Bishop Reynolds,81 an addition which rendered the book more perfect by making the Thanksgivings correspond with the Prayers.82	Thanksgivings.
1 The objection was raised as to the innovations made by him: ’ Αλλ’ ουκ ην φησι, επι του μεγαλου Γρεγοριου. He replies: ’Αλλ’ ουδε αι λιτανειαι ας υμεις νυν επιτηδευετε. Και ου κατηγορων υμων λεγω ηυχομην γαρ παντας υμας εν δακρυσι ζην μετανοια διηνεκει. S. Basil, Ep, CCVII. (al. 63), ad Clericos Neocæsar, Opp. iii. 311. D. (iii. 450). 2 The Arians, not being allowed to use the churches within the city, αssembled about the public squares, and after singing heretical chants through a great part of the night, at dawn of Saturday and Sunday went through the city and out of the gates to their places of worship, singing responsorially all the way. S. Chysostom fearing that his people might be induced by these processions to join the Arians, established similar nocturnal services of singing and orthodox processions on a more splendid scale; and by the help of the Empress Eudoxia silver crosses were provided bearing waxlights, which were carried in the processions of the orthodox, until, after the rival processions had come to blows, the Arian processions were suppressed by the Emperor. Socr. Hist. Eccl. VI. 8; Sozom. H. E., VIII. 8. 3 E.g. an earthquake at Constantinople (430). Niceph. Callist. Hist. XIV. 46. Migne P. G. cxlvi. 1217. 4 Above, p. 333. 5 Both terms were in use in Gaul: e. g. Canon 27 of the first Council of Orleans (51l); ‘Rogationes id est litanias ante ascensionem Domini ab omnibus ecclesiis placuit celebrari, &c.’ Bruns, ii. 163. Cp. above, P.324.	Notes Return to text
6 See the passages collected by Bishop, Kyrie eleison, pp. 16, 17: even as late as 572 the second Council of Braga ordered: ‘in cuius (sc. quadragesimæ) initio convenientes in unum vicinæ ecclesiæ per triduum cum psalmis per sanctorum basilicas ambulantes celebrent litanias.’ Ibid. ii·42. 7 Apost. Const. viii. 6, in L. E. W. p. 4. Cp. the opening part of that now in use in the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom printed above, p. 269. 8 For the history of this phrase, see above, p. 393.	Return to text
9 The same use is attested by S. Chrysostom; see L. E. W;, pp. 471 and ff.; cp. p. 52 for S. Basil. These three witnesses of the IVth century seem to be the earliest extant. 10 ’Εκτενη or Συναπτη is the Eastern term, not litania. 11 Epist. IX. 12. Migne, P. L., LXXVII. 956. The Pope, being charged (amongst other innovations borrowed from Constantinople) with having ordered the saying of Kyrie eleison at Mass, replied: ‘Kyrie eieison autem nos neque diximus neque dicimus sicut a Græcis dicitur: quia in Græcis simul omnes dicunt, apud nos autem a c1ericis dicitur et a populo respondetur : et totidem vicibus etiam Christe eleison dicitur, quod apud Græcos nullo modo dicitur. In quotidianis autem missis aliqua quæ dici solent tacemus; tantummodo Kyrie eleison et Christe eleison dicimus, ut in his deprecationis vocibus paulo diutius occupemur.’ The interpretation of the passage is in several ways doubtful: it is not clear whether S. Gregory denies having introduced the Kyrie at Mass, or whether he only denies that in doing so he slavishly copied the customs of Constantinople. That the Kyrie was in use seventy or eighty years earlier in some form in Italy and Rome is clear from the third Canon of the Council of Vaison (529). 12 Duchesne, Origines, 156. The number is still undetermined in the first Roman Ordo, § 9; cp. Ordo III. 9, and for the transition the Ordo of S. Amand, Duchesne, p. 442. 13 The Ambrosian Liturgy has Kyrie eleison regularly in three places, after the Gloria in Exceisis, after the Gospel, i.e. at the end of the Catechumen’s Mass and at the end of all. Ceriani, Notitia, 43, 44. 14 Dict. Antiq. i. 1001.	Return to text
15 S. Benet (c. 530) uses litania for the Kyrie eleison. (Regula, ‘Supplicatio litaniæ id est Kyrie eleison’; cp. xii. xiii. xvii.) in prescribing its use at the close of the Hours: cp. the lesser Litany above explained, pp. 386, 393, 394. Elsewhere, e.g. in S. Gregory or in the Liber pontificalis, it means simply a procession. The Ordines use it for the Kyrie at Mass. 16 See the provisions in the Ordines Romani: for the ordinary procession, superseding the Kyrie, see Ordo I. §§ 24, 25; and for the similar omission of the Kyrie on Sundays, when there was an ordination, because of the stationary litany that was to follow in the ordination service, see Ordo VIII. § 3, and IX. § 2. In the latter Ordo at § 1 the processional litany is said only in the Church as the Pope advances to the altar: but even so it still supersedes the Kyrie.	Return to text
17 Mabillon, Comm. in Ordinem Romanum, Mus. Ital. 11. xxxiv. Migne P. L. LXXVIII. 868. Cp. Gregory of Tours, Hist. x. 1. 18 These are given to the number of forty-seven for the ‘Litania Maior,’ March 25, in the Gregorian Liber Antiphonarius: P. L. LXX VIII, 682-6. 19 Bed. Hist. Eccl. I. 25. ‘Fertur autem quia adpropinquantes civitati, more suo, cum cruce sancta et imagine magni regis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, hanc lætaniam consona voce modularentur. Deprecamur te, Domine, in omni misericordia tua, ut auferatur furor tuus et ira tua a civitate ista, et de domo sancta tua, quotiam peccavimus. Alleluia.’ 20 From a Canterbury Psalter with interlinear English translation, Camb, Univ. Libr. MS. Ff. i. 23· 21 The four preceding clauses are not in the earliest forms of the Litany: see Egbert Pontifical, pp. 27, 32. Nor yet in the Litany of Easter Even.Proc. Sarum, 83-86.	Return to text
22 For a procession consisting of the Litany sung by the monks of Canterbury standing in the body of the church, while my Lord Cardinal knelt at the choir door, see Cavendish, Life of Wolsey (ed. Morley), p.69. 23 See above, pp. 31-33, for the history. There were English versions of the Litany in the fourteenth century; see Maskell, II. 217 [III. 227]; and the early English Prymer, ib. p. 95 [III. 99]. Littlehales, Prymer, and the forms in Marshall’s and Hilsey’s Primer, in Button’s Three Primers, and above, p. 43. 24 Jacobs, Lutheran Movement, 234 and ff. 25 Dowden, Workmanship, 147 and ff. 26 The form of Litany in Hermann’s Consultation (1543) is derived from the form of Luther, but it is hardly likely that Cranmer was influenced by the Consultation so early as 1544. 27 In some cases these Kyries were repeated also in the body of the Litany between different sections (see Egbert Pont., p. 33), as well as said at the beginning and end. 28 Cranmer also greatly simplified the music, and it is in this form that the Litany is best known now. For the older form of the music see the adaptation published by the Plainsong Society (Vincent and Co., 1900); this also makes plain the structure of the service, which the usual adaptation obscures. 29 For a discussion of the opening invocations see Dowden, Workmanship, pp. 152 and ff.	Return to text
30 ‘Ne reminiscaris, Domine, delicta nostra, vel parentum nostrorum, neque vindictam sumas de peccatis nostris, Non dicitur ulterius quando dicitur in choro. Parce, Domine, parce populo tuo quem redemisti pretioso sanguine tuo, ne in reternum irascaris nobis: et ne des hæreditatem tuam in perditionem, ne in æternum obliviscaris nobis.’ Brev. Sar. ii. 249. See Tobit iii. 3, and Joel ii, 17. Cp. its use below, P: 623. 31 For a tracing of the petitions in detail see Blunt, Annotated B. C. P., who gives the Latin sources fully, but not the Litany of Luther: for which see Jacobs.	Return to text
32 The Sarum Processional and Antiphonal differ here from the Breviary.	Return to text
33 One expression has been traced in a prayer at the Elevation in an edition of the Horæ B. V. M. (Paris, 1530): ‘Sanguis tuus, Domine Jesu Christe, pro nobis effusus sit mihi in remissionem omnium peccatorum, negligentiarum et ignorantiarum mearum.’ Blunt, Annotated Prayer Book, p. 587 [cp. p. 232, ed. 1884]. 34 A Suffrage has been inserted in the American Litany from Luther:— ‘That it may please thee to send forth labourers into thy harvest.’ Also the Litany has some verbal differences:— ‘from all inordinate and sinful affections ‘ — ‘in all time of our prosperity’ — ‘all Christian Rulers and Magistrates,’ which is the only petition for the civil authority — ‘all women in the perils of child-birth.’ The Minister may, at his discretion, omit from the Lesser Litany to the beginning of the Collect: thus destroying the only remains left of the Kyrie and throwing the whole structure into confusion. The Litany may be used at Evening Prayer, after the Collect For Aid against Perils. 35 ‘Dona nobis pacem’ was not in the public Sarum litanies, but was in other English forms. (e. g. Egbert, 30) and in the Visitation of the sick. 36 The prayer was in Sarum Use the Collect in the Mass pro tribulatione cordis:— ‘Deus qui contritorum non despicis gemitum, et mœrentium non spernis affectum; adesto precibus nostris, quas pietati tuæ pro tribulatione nostra offerimus: implorantes ut nos clementer respicias, et solito pietatis tuæ intuitu tribuas ut quicquid contra nos diabolicæ fraudes atque humanæ moliuntur adversitates ad nihilum redigas, et consilio misericordiæ tuæ allidas ; quatenus nullis adversitatibus læsi, sed ab omni tribulatione et angustia liberati, gratias tibi in ecc1esia tua referamus consolati. Per.’ Miss. Sar. col. 797*. 37 The Amen was in the early Elizabethan Litanies, but was not filled in with the rest in 1661. 38 ‘Ordo processionis in secunda feria in rogationibus. Hæc antiphona dicatur a toto choro in stallis .antequam exeat processio, cantore incipiente antiphonam. An. Exsurge, Domine, adjuva nos, et libera nos propter nomen tuum. Alleluia. Ps. Deus, auribus nostris audivimus : patres nostri annuntiaverunt nobis. Non dicatur nisi primus versus, sed statim sequatur Gloria Patri. Deinde repetatur Exsurge Domine.’Processionale Sarum, p. 105, ed. Henderson, 1882.	Return to text
39 The change which made the Gloria a versicle and response was not made till 1661, and was a well-intentioned suggestion of Wren. Fragm. Ill. 62. 40 ‘Si necesse fuerit, versus sequentes dicuntur a predictis clericis in tempore belli. Ab inimicis nostris defende nos, Christe. Afflictionem nostram benignus vide. Dolorem cordis nostri respice c1emens. Peccata populi tui pius indulge. Orationes nostras pius exaudi, Fili Dei vivi, miserere nobis. Hic et in perpetuum nos custodire digneris, Christe. Exaudi nos Christe, exaudi, exaudi, nos, Christe.’ Proc. Sarum, ‘Letania in rogationibus,’ p. 120. The phrase’ Fili Dei vivi’ is, probably by mistake, rendered ‘O Son of David ; cp. Luke xviii. 38: but this was a not uncommon expression in mediæval devotion; see examples in Blunt, Annotated Prayer Book,‘Additional note on the Litany,’ p. 586 [p. 234, note, ed. 1884]· 41 It was one of the Suffrages of Prime and Compline. 42 Proc. Sarum. p. 121. ‘Infirmitatem nostram quæsumus, Domine, propitius respice: et mala omnia quæ juste meremur omnium sanctorum tuorum intercessione averte. Per.’ 1. ‘Deus cui proprium est misereri semper et parcere, suscipe deprecationem nostram; et quos delictorum catena constringit, miseratio tuæ pietatis absolvat. Per.’ O God, whose nature and property, &c. 2. ‘Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui facis mirabilia,’ &c. (The Prayer for the Clergy and People), p. 400. 3. ‘Deus qui caritatis dona,’ &c. 4. ‘Deus a quo sancta desideria,’ &c. The Second Collect at Evening Prayer. See above p. 403. 5. ‘Ineffabilem misericordiam tuam nobis quæsumus, Domine, clementer ostende; ut simul nos et a peccatis omnibus exuas, et a pœnis quas pro his meremur benignus eripias.’ 6. ‘Fidelium Deus omnium conditor et redemptor,’ &c. 7. ‘Pietate tua queesumus, Domine, nostrorum solve vincula,’ &c. 43 ‘Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui facis mirabilia,’ &c. (The Prayer for the Clergy and People), p. 400.	Return to text
44 See above, pp. 400, 401. 45 E. g. the form of the three invocations following the invocation of the Trinity vary. 46 E. g. ‘From fornication and all deadly sin.’ So also the Marian Litany, ‘Pitifully behold the dolour of our heart.’ So also the Elizabethan Litany of 1558. 47 In the First Prayer Book the petition for the fruits of the earth first took its present shape, and, except for the change of ‘as’ to ‘that’ in the tentative Elizabethan Litanies, it has retained it ever since. Again, at the same time the Collect ‘We humbly beseech Thee, O Father,’ was enlarged into its present form. The Second Book, besides other small changes, altered ‘Thy Holy Church universal’ into ‘Thy Holy Church universally.’ 48 It had also peculiarities of its. own, e. g., ‘From battayle and from sudden death,’ ‘Let us not to be ledde into temptation.’ 49 They agreed, however, in being the only copies in which the ‘Amen’ is appended to the first Collect. The Litany of 1559 reverted to the Henrician form of the Gloria patri, but anticipated the Prayer Book, e.g., by enlarging the suffrage for the Queen, see p. 102.	Return to text
50 See The Psalter . . . the Letanye, &c., printed by Roger Car for Anthoni Smyth, 1548. (Brit. Mus., C. 35, b, 2.) 51 Except in the Elizabethan Litany of 1558 where it occurs in both capacities; Lit. Services of Q. Eliz., pp. 7,8. 52 For the relation of this Appendix to the ‘Five Prayers’ see above, pp. 397 and ff. 53 Cranmer Remains, pp. 494,495. 54 Doc. Ann. II. § 23. See above p. 36.	Return to text
55 It has been suggested that the custom may have survived in England though not prescribed in the service books, but no evidence has been cited to support the suggestion. 56 See above, p. 255. 57 Besides the use ordered by the Mandates of June 1544, and August, 1545, other instances occurred, probably before the end of the reign (Greyfriars Chron. 49, 50), and certainly after the issue of the Injunctions, e.g., after the Battle of Pinkie; see Wriothesley Chron. i. 136. They ‘kept a solemn Procession on their knees in English.’ 58 The Injunction spoke of ‘contention and strife which hath risen . . . . by reason of fond courtesy and challenging of places in procession.’ 59 This Injunction was evidently not meant to be of permanent and universal authority: since even in the early years of Elizabeth the English Litany was commonly sung in Procession at S. George’s, ‘Windsor, on S. George’s Day, by the knights of the Garter and priests and clerks in copes and some of them in almuces. Machyn’s Diary; 232, 257, 258, 280, 306, and in 1661 a direction to kneel was at one period of the revision inserted into the opening rubric, but was afterwards struck out. 60 This provision links on not only to the old use of the Litany on these days in Lent, but still more naturally to the old ‘Stations’ of the Early Church, see p. 331.	Return to text
61 See above, p, 34.	Return to text
62 Doc. Ann. LXXVI. 63 This was done at Cosin’s suggestion (Works, v. 509) to prevent a ‘contentious man’ from taking advantage of the absence of direction to say it in the morning. 64 The connexion of the Litany with the Eucharist was not forgotten, e. g., in Elborow’s Exposition of the B. C. P. (1663) the Elizabethan Injunction is expressly quoted on this point, p. 53. 65 The revolutionary and disastrous Shortened Services Act of 1872 actually sanctioned the use of the Litany in the afternoon or evening. It is subversive of all liturgical order that Mattins should follow instead of preceding the Eucharist, but the divorce of this use of the Litany from the Eucharist is both practically and theoretically more unjustifiable still. 66 It is true that such a use is not without precedent, for the appendix forms part of the Second Litany in the Consecration of a Church in theEgbert Pontifical, (Surtees Soc., vol. 27, p. 33)· 67 Elborow, l. c. p. 69. 68 See Lacey, Liturgical Use of the Litany for this subject.	Return to text
69 We find an account of the Sweating Sickness, and a Dearth, in 1551: Strype, Mem. Eccl. Ed. VI. bk. II. ch. iv, Also there was a general European war, besides the more pressing troubles in Ireland: ib. ch. iii. 70 Palmer, Orig. Lit. I. p. 305. The first of these Prayers is in Cosin’sCollection of Private Devotions (1627); the second in the Scottish Prayer Book (1637). 71 In the American Book this Prayer is added to the Prayers from the Commination Service in A penitential Office, to be read on the First Day of Lent, and at other times, at the discretion of the Minister. 72 Maskell, II. p. 107 [III. p. 110]. Being a short Collect, it is given here as an example of mediæval English :-’ Preie we. Orisoun, Deus cui proprium. God, to whom it is propre to be merciful and to spare euermore, undirfonge oure preieris: and the mercifulness of thi pitie asoile hem that the chayne of trespas bindith. Bi criste our lord. So be it.’ See the original Latin above, p. 420. It is a Prayer for Mercy and Pardon in the American Prayer Book. 73 Sovereigns are mentioned as ευσεβεστατοι και πιστατατοι in the Anaphora of St. Basil’s Liturgy: L. E. W. 333. 74 Cardwell, Conferences, p. 233, note; Lathbury, Hist. of Convoc. pp. 301,302. The word Dominion was substituted for Kingdoms by an Order of Council of January 1, 1801.	Return to text
75 Bisse, Beauty of Holiness (5th edition, 1717), p. 97. 76 See above, p. 173.	Return to text
77 ‘The English ritual, I believe, is the only one which contains special thanksgivings for the mercies of God, others having confined themselves to general expressions of gratitude on all such occasions. It has therefore, in the present case, improved on the ancient customs of the Christian Church, instead of being in any way inconsistent with them.’ — Palmer,Orig. Lit. I. p. 307. See Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v, 43. 78 See above, p. 142. 79 Cardwell, Conf. pp. 222, 223. 80 Based upon Wren’s suggestion, Fragm. Ill. p. 64. 81 Cardwell , Synodalia, 658. 82 In the American Prayer Book the Prayer for all Conditions of Men, and the General Thanksgiving are inserted in their place in the Morning and Evening Prayer; and the General Thanksgiving is also inserted at the end of the Litany. The Prayer for Parliament becomes, with slight alteration, A Prayer for Congress; A Prayer to be used at the Meetings of Convention is taken in great part from a paragraph in the Homily for Whit-Sunday, changes of phrase being provided, adapting it for use in churches during the session of any General or Diocesan Convention. The Prayers, For Rain, For Fair Weather, In Time of Dearth and Famine, andIn Time of War and Tumults, are taken with some changes of phrase, and omission of the references to the Old Testament; and the two forms For those who are to be admitted into Holy Orders, to be used in the Weeks preceding the stated Times of Ordination, are taken from the English Book, with only two minute improvements in the first Form, ‘who’ (for ‘which’), and ‘show forth’ (for ‘set forth’) thy glory, as ‘set forward’ immediately follows. The Prayer in Time of great Sickness and Mortality, was composed and placed in the Book of 1789; and additional Forms are provided For the Unity of God’s People, For Missions, For Fruitful Seasons (in two Forms), to be used on Rogation Sunday and the Rogation-days. Also, For a Sick Person, For a Sick Child, For a Person or Persons going to Sea, For a Person under Affliction, For Malefactors after Condemnation (all dating from 1789). Additional Thanksgivings (to be used after the General Thanksgiving) are, For a Recovery from Sickness, For a Child’s Recovery from Sickness(1892), and For a Safe Return from Sea. The Thanksgiving from the Churching Office is also placed among the Occasional Thanksgivings.