On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    found in this ftitrf division of Luke ' s Gospel , wtiich are wanting in the others ; and taafty ate related in a very different connexion fo y him and by Matthew , so as materially to alter their import . Instead of advening to the manner in which Schleiermacher endeavours to separate the history intd its originally distinct elements , we shall select from this part some exaariptes of his reasons for preferring the connexion assigned by Luke to that which we find in Matthew . Speaking of the Lord ' s Prayer , ( Luke xi 1- —13 , ) introduced by Matthew into the Sermon on the Mount , he observes ,

    " Under circumstances like those in which the disciples met Christ on the Mount , the throng of people who were expecting Christ behind them , and close to them the numerous sick who desired to be healed , such a request would scarcely occur to them ; still less if at that time the choice of the Twelve was at hand . What answer could they expect but to be put off to a more favourable opportunity ? And how little would he have satisfied their wishes if he had afterwards delivered this form to that great and very mixed multitude ! Indeed , how little natural and appropriate does this seem upon closer

    examination in itself 1 So that I have no doubt that tkis prayer was only inserted in the Sermon on the Mount by one who possessed only the prayer * without the account of the place and time of its first communication . The occasion here mentioned is highl y natural , and hence our shorter form of the prayer should probably be considered as the original , an opinion which of course is not meant to prejudice the use of the longer in public worship . Nor can I persuade myself that Christ ' s subsequent discourse , xi . 5—13 , does not belong to this place , but was spoken on another occasion . The part of it which appears in Matthew vii . 7- * -H , is there evidently destitute of all

    coherence . Even here the expression xay » vp . 7 v \ iya > at verse 9 indicates a chasm , nor is the phrase koI the irpb <; dvrov <; , verse 5 , b y any means a proof that the following words of Christ were spoken immediately after the Lord ' s Prayer $ on the contrary it is more credible that Jesus had given several more circumstantial illustrations of the prayer , which have not been recorded , before he came to this easily remembered parable , and so again in the sequel . Still the reference of both passages to the Lord ' s Prayer is too clear to be mistaken . For one whose conception of the thought is not disturbed by the anthropopathie figure , the parable , verses 5—8 , certainly contains a fine encouragement

    to perseverance and confidence in prayer , and in all active exertions in behalf of the kingdom of God , according to the means which every one has of prosecuting them in particular cases to the best of his conviction . In the same way , much as the second passage , verses 9—13 , when torn as it is in Matthew out of the context , stands in need of explanation to . prevent it from being misunderstood , vet confining our thoughts to the objects of petition and entreaty presented m the Lord ' s Prayer we readil y and easily accept the assurance , that God , in respect to hiskingdom , will certainly not bestow on us useless and unavailing instead of really indispensable , and pernicious instead of desirable gifts . And together with this strong general assurance the passage contains a no less striking inducement to restrain too confident expectations in respect to more

    specific desires . Hence , too , the whole returns to the one thing needful , the nfv&vfMx . ayiw * to which aH the petitions of the Lord ' s Prayer likewise point But in Matthew , where the speech is torn out # f the context , this reference is unavoidably lost , and an equivocal expression substituted /'—Pp . 181—183 . By irvevi / . a ciyiov , we tnust understand our author to mean the spirit of the gospel , not miraculous gifts ; otherwise it is difficult to see in what sense he represents all the petitions of the Lord ' s Prayer as having a reference to it . In his comment on ch . xi . 37—54 , he observes , that the charges against the

    Pharisees , immediately following a charge made by one of them against our Lord for not "practising ablution , previous to the morning meal , are much more naturally connected "with the circumstances , ( especially the mention of

    Untitled Article

    Review . ~ -8 chtetem&ehe ? s Critical Essay on the V « spel of Si . Luke . 4 &

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1827, page 43, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1792/page/43/