Smyrna times., 1881-06-15

]
the dOxolOgy is variously given, even in
those manuscripts, and versions that have
it; while also some which omit it. have
the " Amen" In this way, we may ac-
count for it finding its way into the Old
Syriac, the Sahidic, and other somewhat
ancient versions, perhaps from the margins
of some ancient manuscripts, (now lost
though not i'll the original text; 10 doubt
at first written, as afterwards, in a differ
ent character or in red ink That it is
found in the Old Syriac Version, does by
no means prove its genuinene3s, unless we
could be sure it always had it, and that
VIC have that version in its original purity,
which we have not; as it is admitted that
there are passages in it which have been
intcrpolatcd from later Syriac Versions
| AS all the most ancient authorities have
Withone consent omitted it, they could have
had no reason for doing so, had it formed
| part Ofthe original text. T0assunc, assOmc
do, that the Latin Fathers purposcly
omitted it because of its not being con-
tanned in that other form or model of
prayer given by our Lord OH another oc-
casiOn, according to Luke, is taking for
granted, what cannot be proved, and
should not, as Bloomfield well says, be be
lievcd except on the strongest proof. as
involving the credit of these venerable
persons. Besides, there was Il far more
serious discrepancy involved in the clause
Immediately preceding, "but delircr us
from the erii' lOnc) or from crH :" that
not being found in the Vulgate and Italc
Versions of Luke, nor In any of the Latin
Fathers in qucstion-and which is cancel
led i'll the best critical editions of the
Greek Testament. They did not. how
ever, attempt to remove that seeming dis
crepancy, why then His2 No answer sat
isfactorily can be given.
That the prayer is not complete without
the doxology, is an argument of no force
; whatever; for it is evidently more COM
plete without, than with it, as The doxolo-
gy materially interrupts the connection
between the phrase. ''as we also have for
given our debtors and the admonition
W.,
! forgive men, &C." The harshness of the
= interruption is greatly lessened by the
! omission of the doxology, as is evident tC
every reader; and the prayer more com
u u plete, and unique as a prayer. The argu
ment founded on the subIiDity, and dp
prOpridtencss of the clause in question is o
/ no consideration; and to say the least i.
" very inconclusiVe-Or rather of no weigh
Il at all, for the Jewish prayers had becom,
u rich Ill such dOXOlOgies, and the ancicn
IL liturgies, both Greek, and Latin, bein!
e chiefly based ON scripture, abound in pas
u sagcs of great sublimity. And as to it
u appropriateness, that is quite consisten
u with it being interpOlated, for such alon
y could cause it to be introduced here Ac
cording to such arguments, resting OF
I mere subjective grounds, it is evident tha
II we should have no fixed principles at all t.
determine the sacred text, a spurious nas
I sage on such grounds may be fitted to an,
= context, as well as a genuine one 80
'o what" as afford well observes, ''seems t
one critic appropriate, and necessary. is ii
view of another an incOngruous addition
In dealing with the sacred text we mus
~ not allow any priOri considerations, c
= which we are poor judges, to outweigh tn
~ almost unanimous testimony of ;iquty
!! In view therefore of the whole weight
;" evidence against the genuineness Ofthe don
ology, on every ground of sound criticisI
u it must be omitted, as forming no part {
u the original text.
~ The question may arise in some minds
y if the dOXolOgy forms no part of the sacre
text, in repeating this prayer, should
y not be omitted? We answer emphaticall
> no. While the prayer may be regarded &
form in its abridgement as recorded b
IS Luke, 11:2-4, and as originally uttered
a, that recorded by Matthew in our Lord
ne Sermon on the Mount, although given
10 a directory, and more comprehensive, hG
OF been in general use as a form of prayt
Ell from the earliest times: and as ''perhaI
n our Lord purposely left that part open
-e, and as the grand Jewish doxolOgics wei
ch ever resounding, and passed immediatel
ms and naturally, in all their hallowed fami
Oy iaTity into the Christian Church." IL
n doXology was added to the prayer.
'e, great antiquity, and its constant use ft
81 ages, and as dear to the people of Go
'y make its use proper, and befitting. 1t
ny full of sublimity, is highly appropriat,
~ and may be used in the closing of al
Is prayer after the manner of what
hI' styled The Lords Prayer. 1t is right q
"a ways to render praise to God to each
IN all of the persons of the Holy Trinity
IN say, with CkrysostOm, "Glory to God
uli all things" To purpously omit the do
ers Ology at this juncture, and especially
n" the public worship of the sanctuary, VIII,
'm' the Revised Version has just dropt fro
~, the press savOrs, to say the least, of affe
{, tation, or desire to create sinful sens
Dy ton.
IS; A few words in closing as to the pray
len itself. That this matchless prayer W
nee given by our Lord not only as a mod
but as form, may be inferred from
the very nature. 1t consists not only of hin
va or directions for prayer; it is an actu
lies prayer, and may be used both as q direct
1t. ry, and as form of prayer. One desi
'iae of our Lord in giving it was, no doubt,
the show how much real prayer may be Co
into -.