FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   473   474   475   476   477   478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487   488   489   490   491   492   493   494   495   496   497  
498   499   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521   522   >>   >|  
gy is appropriate as a conclusion, and serves to give an aspect of completeness. It sounds cold and cheerless to end our prayer with 'evil.' But the question is not one of feeling or of our notions of fitness, but purely one of criticism, and the only evidence which has any right to be heard in settling the text of the New Testament is dead against this clause. If we regard that evidence, we are obliged to say that the doxology has no business here. How it stands here is a question which may be answered satisfactorily. When the Lord's Prayer came to be used in public worship, it was natural to append to it a doxology, just as in chanting the psalms it became the habit to repeat at the end of each the Gloria. This doxology, originally written on the margin of the gospel, would gradually creep into the text, and once there, was naturally retained. It does not follow that, because Christ did not speak it, we ought not to use it. It should not be in the Bible, but it may well be in our prayers. If we think that our Lord gave us a pattern rather than a form, we are quite justified in extending that pattern by any additions which harmonise with its spirit. If we think He gave us a form to be repeated _verbatim_, then we ought not to add to it this doxology. At first sight it seems as if the prayer without it were incomplete. It contains loving desires, lowly dependence, humble penitence, earnest wishes for cleansing, but there appears none of that rapturous praise which is also an element in all true devotion. And this may have been one reason for the addition of the doxology. But I think that that absence of praise and joy is only apparent; the first clause of the prayer expresses the highest form of both. The doxology, if you will think of it, adds nothing to the contemplation of the divine character which the prayer has already taught us. It is only a repetition at the close of what we had at the beginning, and its conception, lofty and grand as it is, falls beneath that of 'Our Father.' We might almost say that the doxology is incongruous with the prayer as presenting a less blessed, spiritual, distinctively Christian thought of God. That would be going too far, but I cannot but feel a certain change in tone, a dropping from the loftiest elevation down to the celebration of the lower aspects of the divine. 'Kingdom, power, and glory' are grand, but they do not reach the height of ascription of praise which sounds in the
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   473   474   475   476   477   478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487   488   489   490   491   492   493   494   495   496   497  
498   499   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521   522   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

doxology

 

prayer

 
praise
 

question

 
clause
 

divine

 

sounds

 

pattern

 

evidence

 

highest


apparent

 
expresses
 

wishes

 

penitence

 
humble
 
contemplation
 
loving
 

absence

 

earnest

 
addition

appears
 

character

 

element

 

dependence

 
desires
 
reason
 

rapturous

 

cleansing

 

devotion

 

change


dropping
 

loftiest

 

elevation

 

height

 

ascription

 

celebration

 

aspects

 

Kingdom

 

conception

 
beneath

beginning

 
taught
 
repetition
 

Father

 

spiritual

 
distinctively
 

Christian

 
thought
 

blessed

 
incongruous