et admoneat, quisnam esse debeat votorum nostrorum scopus, sed etiam ut doceat, preces nostras, quæ hic nobis dictatæ sunt, non alibi, quam in Deo solo fundatas esse, ne propriis meritis nitamur.' Bengel, however, comes to the aid of the Latin codices, which omit the words, with the observation drawn deep from the spirit of Christianity: Celebramus eum (patrem cœlestem) tali fere modo, quo peregrinantes et militantes contenti esse debemus. Ubi ad metam pervenerit universitas filiorum Dei, mera fiet in cœlo doxologia; venit regnum ejus, facta est voluntas ejus, remisit nobis peccata, &c.; præsertim tempori illi, quo Dominus hanc formulam discipulis præscripsit, convenientior erat rogatio, quam hymnus. Jesus nondum erat glorificatus,' &c. But in this observation, the point is overlooked upon which most depends, viz., that we have here, according to Heumann's correct remark, the doxology under an aitiological form. It is not a burst of emotion swelling over into a hymn. It is much more an intensified &u, specifying the basis upon which the suppliant places his confidence. The internal evidences, accordingly, could not make us at all dubious of the authenticity of the words-barring the single circumstance, that the order of the three predicates βασιλεία, δύναμις and δόξα would correspond better with the three triads of petitions, if the dúvaus stood before the Baochela. It is evidence of an external kind which determines the point.

"The critical proofs of the spuriousness of the passage are to be found developed in Bengel, Appar. crit. p. 459, Jac. Breitinger, Museum Helvet. XI. 370. XVI. 591. XVIII. 719, in Wetstein and Griesbach's Comment. crit. d. 68, sqq., from the two last of which Rödiger has collected them, enlarged by some remarks, in the third appendix to his Ed. of Griesbach's Synopsis. We confine ourselves here to a statement of the main results. 1. To be sure, a very few, but these the most eminent Greek codices, as the Cod. Vat. and Cantab., omit them. The Cod. Alex. is defective just at this place. The most of these codices are of western origin. That the words were wanting in them, is corroborated by the Latin translation, and by the most ancient Latin fathers. Neither Tertullian nor Cyprian, nor Jerome (who yet retains the Amen), nor Augustine read this doxology. Tertullian expressly calls the sixth petition the clausula of the prayer. 2. The Alexandrine codices, moreover, did not contain the words, and they are wanting in Origen and in the Coptic version. 3. In other authorities they are also missing, in the Arabic translation of the ed. Rom. of the four Evangelists, of 1591, from which the Paris and London Polyglott has borrowed them, and in the Persic translation, edited by Whelock from three Persic codices in 1652, in Cyrill of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus and Cæsarius. Euthymius reproaches the Bogomilians with rejecting the imponua of the Lord's prayer, appended by the fathers of the church: τὸ παρὰ τῶν θείων φωστήρων καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καθηγητῶν προστεθὲν ἀκροτελεύτιον ἐπιφώνημα τὸ ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ή βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δόξα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, οὐδὲ ἀκοῦσαι ávézoriai. 4. As the practice gradually crept in of supplementing the less, from the more complete, reports of Christ's sayings, what Matthew contains over and above what is given by Luke, was likewise added to the text of the Lord's prayer in the latter evangelist. Nevertheless, the doxology is wanting in it, according to all the codices. 5. It is, moreover, easy to make it appear how the addition could have arisen. Even among the Jews responses were customary. In the public recitation of prayers, the people pronounced either an amen, or a doxology similar to that which we find, 1 Chron. xxix. 11. This practice of antiphonies was trans

>

lated into the Christian church, and, what is very remarkable, we are even able to point out the progressive steps by which the epilogue attained its present form. In one passage of the Constit. Apost. 1. VII. c. 24, we find the Lord's prayer with the shorter doxology, ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία εἰς rods al@ras• àuny, whereas in another, 1. III. c. 18, the formula is complete. Thus the Sahidic, or Upper Egyptian version, reads the abbrevi ated formula ý đóraμis xai tò noúros. See Cramer's 'Beiträge zur Beförderung,' &c. Th. III. p. 60. The doxology underwent a still greater enlargement, after the fifth century, at which time, the allusion to the Trinity that became ever more and more frequent in liturgical formulas, appears. Thus cod. 157 and 225, in Griesbach have, after dósa, the addition τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, and it is to this that Lucian's Philopatris, c. 27, seems to allude, where it says, Theyùy ảnò τοῦ πατρὸς ἀρξάμενος, καὶ τὴν πολυώνυμον ᾠδὴν εἰς τέλος ἐπιθείς. Hence the ed. Complut. in its day, and afterwards Erasmus and Beza, express the conjecture, that the formula has passed over into the text of the New Test., from the usage of the liturgies. In the same way, in the 'Ave Maria,' the 'quia perperisti servatorem animarum nostrarum,' was appended to the 'benedicta tu in mulieribus.' In the same way, too, do our ministers extend, in a variety of modes, the Mosaic benediction; and thus, in the Romish church, 'per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum,' was frequently annexed to the 'libera nos a malo' of the Lord's prayer itself. Besides those we have already specified at p. 303, the following older authors have regarded the words as spurious: Zwinglius (not Calvin), Ecolampadius, Pellicanus, Bucer, Melancthon, Camerarius, Drusius, Schultetus, Walton, Grotius, Mill, Grabe, M. Pfaff, whom almost all follow. Luther, too, has passed over the doxology in both of his Catechisms.

Among the advocates for the authenticity of the formula, we have to name Wolf, Olearius, Witsius, Heumann, S. J. Baumgarten, de auth, doxol.' Halæ, 1753, Heinr. Benzenberg in the 'Symbolæ Duisb.' 1784, T. II. P. 1, p. 97, Matthäi in the Anm. zu s. N. T.,' Weber, in the dissertation already referred to. All that they produce in favor of their opinion, however, can never be brought into comparison with the facts already stated. Benzenberg enters most minutely into the subject; but the shifts to which he has recourse, some of them of a very violent character, have already found an opponent in the editor of the Symb.,' the learned P. Berg. The witness of greatest weight in favor of the authenticity, is doubtless the Peschito. The three Syrian translations, viz., the Peschito, the Philoxenian, and the Jerusalem, contain the doxology. The two last as belonging to a later date, cannot here be taken into consideration. With regard to the authority of the Peschito, however, even it is not above the suspicion of certain interpolations or additions by the Lectiona ries. The passages in it, by which this is evinced, have been collected by Griesbach, Meletemata de vetustis textus N. T. recensionibus,' p. li. The Ethiopic, Armenian, and Gothic versions, along with the Arab. Erp. and the Persic in the London Polyglott, did not take their origin prior to the fourth century, and hence possess no force as evidence. Matthäi insists that it was Origen who first introduced the depravation into the text, for which assumption, however, there is a total want of plausible proof; and he fancies he can annihilate the authority of the Vulgate by 1 John v. 7. For just as at that passage, the Latins have, for doctrinal reasons, made an addition, so, on grounds liturgical, did they proprio Marte banish the words in question from the Greek Text. 'Nov. Test. Græce,' T. I.

p. 23. II. p. 297. Whereas, on the contrary, Bengel found in our passage no slender confirmation of the partial opinion he entertained of the Latin version, in order the more powerfully to justify his favorite text, 1 John v. 7. But even were Matthäi successful in setting aside the authority of the Vulgate, that is by no means the sole evidence for the omission of the passage. Benzenberg goes still more arbitrarily to work, endeavoring to raise a suspicion that all the ecclesiastical fathers who omit the words have been corrupted by the Paris editors into conformity with the Vulgate.

"Now, even although we should, on the grounds advanced, discard this doxology from the text, it will still maintain its place undisputed in the use of the church. For, if we only have not, as above shown, to restrict ourselves scrupulously to the precise words of the prayer, as if it were a magical formula, we are at liberty to extend it. Now, that the extension here presented to us in the doxology, has been made entirely in the spirit of the Lord, is what can in nowise be called in question." -THOLUCK.

NOTE I, p. 263.

Augustine observes how those who are addressed here as 'being evil,' are the very same into whose mouths but just now the Lord has put that word, 'Our Father;' to whom he has made the promise, ‘Ask and it shall be given you;' so that every faithful, i. e., believing man, has a double aspect, he is 'evil' through his old nature, he is good through participation with him who is the highest good, who is in some sense the alone good (Matth. xix. 17), the good in himself, and altogether good, while others are good through him, and only as they are sharers of his life. So that we may perceive here, that he has seized the right interpretation of the 'being evil,' which they fail to catch who take the epithet 'evil,' not as the designation of all men, of human nature in general (Gen. viii. 21), as it is opposed to the goodness and holiness of God, but of some particular men deeper sunk in corruption than the rest; as if Christ would say, even the worst among you (even the ornooi), do not extend their malignity to their children, but in their relations to them show themselves bountiful and good. But the other is the truer and deeper explanation, embracing the whole race of man under this charge of evil, who, being such, have yet natural affections, the yearnings of a parent's heart towards their children, and, according to their ability and knowledge, impart unto them good gifts, which, if not in the highest degree deserving the title of 'good,' are yet good for the necessities of the present life. How much more certainly will the heavenly Father impart the true goods of his kingdom, for it is those that the Lord has prominently in his eye, as is plainly shown by a comparison with the parallel passage in St. Luke (xi. 13), where, instead of 'good things,' it is his Holy Spirit,' which is promised to them who ask. This view of the reference and meaning of novηool will come clearly out, if we note how tíç ë§ vμòv äv0çanos is not pleonastic, as we make it, 'What man of you;' but there is a silent opposition between the rownos here, and the πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς of verse 11; "Who of you, though he be but a man, &c.; and the being but a man will plainly appear equal to πονηρὸς ὤν.”TRENCH.

6

EXPOSITION V.

แ

FAITHFUL DENUNCIATIONS.

LUKE xi. 37-54.

MILDNESS of disposition and gentleness of demeanor were striking features in the character and conduct of Jesus Christ. No malignant passion disturbed the tranquillity of his bosom, no intemperate rudeness ruffled the even tenor of his behavior. Affectionate to his friends, forgiving to his enemies, condescending to the poor, compassionate to the miserable, courteous to all men, he exhibited a perfect pattern of those amiable virtues, which, if generally cultivated and exemplified, would produce so happy a transformation on the state of human society. He did not strive nor cry, neither was his voice heard in the streets. A bruised reed he did not break, and the smoking flax he did. not quench." To instruct the ignorant, to warn the unwary, to comfort the sorrowful, to relieve the afflicted, were the employments most congenial to his dispositions; and in these and simi. lar exercises did he spend the period of his residence among mortals. Malignity was a feeling to which he was entirely a stranger. The unparalleled sufferings to which he was exposed excited in him no desire of revenge. Instead of hating his enemies, he pitied them; and their grossest insults, and most outrageous cruelties, but drew forth from him sighs for their folly and wickedness, and prayers for their pardon and salvation.

The gentleness of the Saviour's character was, however, no way akin to that weak undistinguishing good nature, which seems to survey all mankind with an equal and inactive goodwill, without reference to their moral qualities. It was associated with an unconquerable detestation of moral evil in all its various forms, and an unquenchable zeal to promote the cause of holi ness and of God. Accordingly, we find him unfolding, not merely the consolations, but the terrors of religious truth; we find him speaking in alarming, as well as in soothing accents; we find him not only promising peace, and pardon, and salvation, to him who will gladly and gratefully receive what is "freely given him of God," but declaring that a miserable eternity must be the portion of the finally impenitent, unbelieving, and disobedient.

It is one of the peculiarities of our Lord, that he unites in himself qualifications, not only different, but apparently opposite. The man, the leading feature of whose character is gentleness, is generally deficient in the sterner virtues; while, on the other hand, he who is remarkably endowed with unbending integrity, not unfrequently seems a stranger to the softer feelings of our nature, and is distinguished by a severity of deportment which goes far to make his undoubted excellencies unamiable and useless. But in the character of the Saviour, the amiable and estimable qualities, the lovely and the venerable virtues, so supported and softened each other, that his gentleness never degenerated into weakness, nor did his integrity ever assume the appearance of repulsive severity. While he pitied men's miseries, he condemned their sins; while he reproved their faults, he commiserated their sorrows.

Of the compassionate kindness of our Lord, both in word and deed, there are recorded, by the evangelists, many beautiful examples. In the passage which now lies before us, we have a striking display of that holiness which "cannot bear them that are evil”—that integrity which knows not how to palliate sin, or flatter the sinner. The severe reproof, and indignant reprobation, of men distinguished for their wealth, their rank, their learning, and their reputation for sanctity, which these words breathe, may, on a cursory view, appear scarcely compatible with the declaration of our Lord, that he was "meek, and lowly in heart." The incongruity is, however, merely apparent. These words are not the ebullition of mortified pride, or disappointed ambition, cloaking personal malignity under the pretence of zeal for truth and holiness. They are the expression of the loathing, which the contemplation of moral evil, in some of its vilest forms, excited in a perfectly holy mind; and a declaration, by a divinelyauthorized revealer of the purposes of God, of the signal punishment which is awaiting such as habitually and wilfully oppose truth, from unworthy motives, and for unworthy ends.

The Pharisees were a numerous and influential body among the Jews. Their rulers or leading men, to whom our Lord's remarks have a primary and principal reference, were possessed of a large portion of the learning of their age and nation. They were characterized by a remarkably strict attention to the ritual of the Mosaic religion, as explained and enlarged by the traditions of the elders, and by a high degree of external decorum, and apparent sanctity of deportment and manners; and they occupied many of the most important and dignified offices connected with the teaching of the laws of their nation, and the administering them both in the supreme and municipal judicatories. Owing to these circumstances, they possessed an extensive and powerful influence over the public mind; and, generally indig nant at the subjugation of the holy people to a foreign, a Gentile yoke, they were disposed to use that influence in procuring for

1 Rev. ii. 2.