SOME

СНАРТЕR IX.

THE SEVENTH PETITION.

BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL."

NOME have considered this clause as a part of the sixth petition; a stating positively what had been already expressed negatively: "Bring us not in, but pull us out." Others regard it as a separate petition, associated with the preceding but more comprehensive, having affinity with it, but seeking a blessing higher in degree, the absolute reverse of what had been deprecated-deliverance from evil universally. As the petition "Forgive us" refers to the past, and

Lead us not into temptation" to the present, so this "Deliver us from evil" reaches forward to the future. Thus it forms a separate and seventh petition, completing the perfect Jewish number.

The expression ȧπò тоû Tоνηрoû, from the evil, may be neuter, meaning "evil" in general, or "the evil thing" specifically; or it may be masculine and rendered, as by the Revisers, "the Evil One." The older and more familiar rendering is sustained by Rom. xii. 9: "Abhor that which is evil," Tò Tovηpóν; "cleave to that which is good," To ȧyale. If “good”

in the abstract is that which is to be cherished, "evil" in the abstract, "the evil," is that which is to be shunned. Dean Alford says, “ τοῦ πονηροῦ is here certainly neuter; the introduction of the Evil One' would here be quite incongruous and even absurd." Stier says: "This is the Liturgy of all liturgies, and here it reaches its sublime close; which through the deep lowliness of the believing 'deliver us,' immediately passes on to the heavenly doxology. And just at this point must the Conqueror confer that honour on the vanquished enemy to name him with his threatening power? Are the believing children of the Father, already redeemed, for ever to be subjected to the contumely at the end of every private and common prayer of mentioning him? Let him believe this who can! Our inmost sense of holy propriety recoils from it. The Redeemer has left His own name unmentioned; though Himself the ground, medium, end of every prayer: and can He be thought to have expressly mentioned Satan?"

In defence of the R.V. it is urged, that, as the rendering "the Evil One" must be given to the same Greek word in most other passages, consistency requires the same rendering here. In the parable of the Sower, our Lord says, "Then cometh the Evil One," o Tovηpós (the masculine of person, not the neuter of thing), "and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart." "The evil" is here an intelligent agent performing an act. Our Lord in His intercessory prayer said, "I pray that Thou shouldst keep them

X

ÈK TоÛ πоVηρоÛ;" on which Alford says, "Not from the evil, as E.V., but from the Evil One, John xvii. 15;" and refers to the usage of the same apostle in 1 John ii. 14; "I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and ye have overcome the wicked one," Tòν Tovηρóv; and in v. 19, “We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth év T Tоνηρ@," "in the Evil One," as contrasted with the righteous, who are è тоû Beоû. So it is said of Cain, that he was "of that wicked one," èk ToÛ TоVηρoû (1 John iii. 12). St. Paul, in describing the armour wherewith Christians "may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil," says, "Withal taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the Evil One,” τοῦ πονηροῦ. Dean Mansel says: "The words may also be rendered 'from the Evil One;' but the neuter is more comprehensive, and includes deliverance from the evil thoughts of one's own heart, and from evils from without, as well as from the temptations of Satan." familiar and wider term, as relating to all "the evil" connected with temptation: comprising the Tempter himself, the "Evil One;" the evils directly and indirectly resulting from yielding to temptation; and the evil tendencies in our own hearts which incline us so to yield. Thus praying, we seek the final deliverance of the Church from whatever assails and pollutes it; the rescue of the world and all who dwell on it from whatever injures it; the accomplishment of every holy hope; the fulfilment of all millennial

We prefer the

prophecy; the perfect blessedness of all who call God "Our Father who art in heaven." Thus viewed, this last petition is the climax of the whole prayer, the chief, permanent, all-comprehensive longing of the believer. "Whatever tribulation he may suffer, for this he groans, in hope of this he weeps; from this begins, with this perseveres, uttering this completes his prayer" (St. Augustine-Tholuck).

I. THE EVIL ONE.

If the petition does not refer exclusively to Satan, he is included in it. Of the "temptation" against which we pray, he is the chief promoter; of the "evil" from which we implore deliverance, he is the chief author. It is the fashion of what is called "advanced thought" to deride the idea of a personal devil as a nursery bugbear, a tradition of the dark ages, a Monastic and Puritan superstition, a fossil of the past fit only for the shelves of an ecclesiastical museum. And in popular literature and amusements the personality of Satan is employed for caricature, burlesque and ridicule. But if a fact and not a fiction, it is too solemn a truth, with consequences too momentous, to be treated with levity. When the devil is made a subject of jesting, his existence is as practically disowned as when formally denied.

Is this doctrine of a personal devil so absurd as to be absolutely incredible, even if affirmed by testimony in other respects worthy of reliance? Agnosticism

finds no such Being; but does it possess positive evidence that no such Being exists? Ignorance of a fact is no necessary disproof. Until I know with absolute certainty all existences throughout the universe, I cannot absolutely pronounce that any particular person or thing has no existence, much less that such existence is impossible. Otherwise ignorance would become positive knowledge. There are occult agencies now regarded as distinct existences which were once never thought of except as phenomena. Things are now familiarly known which were recently hidden by reason of distance or minuteness, but which existed as certainly when unknown as when demonstrated by telescope and microscope. It would have been very unphilosophical to have pronounced their existence impossible simply because unknown. What is now so familiar to us in the achievements of science, telegraphy, the telephone, etc., might with equal reason have been derided as the idle dream of enthusiasm fifty years ago. True science holds itself ready to accept any fact when demonstrated, however unknown, strange and improbable at present.

The "Evil One" is a spirit, and therefore his existence cannot be demonstrated in the same manner as that of beings like ourselves, incorporate, visible, tangible. Yet we ourselves are spirits; not so much bodies in which spirits dwell, as spirits for a time occupying bodies. We do not actually see each other, but merely the body thus inhabited. Is it