Difference between revisions of "Liverpool Liturgy"
From BiblePortal Wikipedia
Tag: Manual revert |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Charles Buck Theological Dictionary <ref name="term_20068" /> == | == Charles Buck Theological Dictionary <ref name="term_20068" /> == | ||
<p> A liturgy so called from its first publication at Liverpool. It was composed by some of the Presbyterians, who, growing weary of extempore prayer, thought a form more desirable. It made its appearance in 1752. Mr. Ortin says of it, "It is scarcely a [[Christian]] liturgy. In the collect the name of | <p> A liturgy so called from its first publication at Liverpool. It was composed by some of the Presbyterians, who, growing weary of extempore prayer, thought a form more desirable. It made its appearance in 1752. Mr. Ortin says of it, "It is scarcely a [[Christian]] liturgy. In the collect the name of Christ is hardly mentioned; and the Spirit is quite banished from it." It was little better than a deistical composition. Orton's Letters, vol. 1: p. 80, 81. Bogue and Bennett's Hist. of Diss. vol. 3: p. 342. </p> | ||
==References == | ==References == | ||
Line 9: | Line 6: | ||
<ref name="term_20068"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/charles-buck-theological-dictionary/liverpool+liturgy Liverpool Liturgy from Charles Buck Theological Dictionary]</ref> | <ref name="term_20068"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/charles-buck-theological-dictionary/liverpool+liturgy Liverpool Liturgy from Charles Buck Theological Dictionary]</ref> | ||
</references> | </references> |
Latest revision as of 10:14, 13 October 2021
Charles Buck Theological Dictionary [1]
A liturgy so called from its first publication at Liverpool. It was composed by some of the Presbyterians, who, growing weary of extempore prayer, thought a form more desirable. It made its appearance in 1752. Mr. Ortin says of it, "It is scarcely a Christian liturgy. In the collect the name of Christ is hardly mentioned; and the Spirit is quite banished from it." It was little better than a deistical composition. Orton's Letters, vol. 1: p. 80, 81. Bogue and Bennett's Hist. of Diss. vol. 3: p. 342.