As to this, I have no quarrel with any. I leave every one perfectly free to use or not to use it. No Christian, in his senses, but thinks whatsoever the Lord did or said was absolutely perfect in its place. The question is, What is the place He gave it?
I add, further, I think the argument against its use, drawn from asking forgiveness is weak. The forgiven state is the witness of our being that in which we have forgiveness, like all other proof of life. But for all that, the demand of it is generally a proof that true forgiveness is not known; but this is a question of spiritual perception and judgment.
But Mr. I—is singularly unhappy in his way of insisting on it. He takes the Lord's prayer in Luke, because it is said, “When ye pray, say!” But nobody says the Lord's prayer as it is in Luke, but as it is in Matthew.
But more than this: probably Mr. I-'s military education has given him little opportunity for critical inquiry. Nor is this any blame if he attends to what is more important. But if he had attended to it, he prayer has led to the interpolation of Luke, in order to assimilate him to Matthew, and that in fact we have two Lord's prayers—both assuredly perfect in their place and given by inspiration. The prayer in Luke really runs thus: “Our Father, thy name be hallowed. Thy kingdom come; give our needed bread for each day, and remit us our sins for we also remit to every one indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation.” Now for the purpose for which the Holy Ghost gives this version of it here, I believe this to be perfect, and for that for which it is given in Matthew it is perfect there. Only there too, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever,” has been added from ecclesiastical use of it, and is interpolated. But this makes sad havoc of its use as a prescribed formulary; for which are we to use, Luke's Lord's prayer, or Matthew's Lord's prayer? for they are not the same. I repeat, no Christian in his senses doubts of the perfectness of the Lord's words, and in principle every desirable thing is summed up in this prayer.
But there is a very important feature in the nature of this prayer which Mr. I—has overlooked; it is not, and could not then be, in Christ's name. The Lord's own statement is distinct on this point: “Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name.” Now that Christ has accomplished redemption, and gone up on high as the Savior who has finished His work, our great High Priest, the essential character of true prayer is that it is in Christ's name; the Lord's prayer, as decidedly, was not, because it was perfect.
But the truth is, that the brethren assailed have never given any judgment or prescribed any rule whatsoever about it. Individuals may have done so. Its habitual use has dropped out, as it has amongst many other Christians (generally, I believe, save among Romanists and Episcopalians). Just as we never find it in the prayers of the New Testament after Pentecost, because the Holy Ghost led them on each occasion according to the particular wants of the moment—all surely consistent with the summary so beautifully given in this prayer; but in the freedom given by the Spirit to express every want as it arose. The use of it as a mere paternoster, having some virtue in it, is a superstition and nothing else.
Mr. I—'s statement is a mere blunder, because nobody ever says it as it is in Luke, and it is, in fact, not simply recited, as it is in Matthew, but as tradition has given it from the Church use. The passage in Matthew having been interpolated to suit this, and nearly half added in Luke to make it in some measure agree with Matthew. Tampering with God's word is the constant and sure effect of ecclesiastical traditions, when that word is not set aside by them.