•^\>t*'t^i ^t WW ®fe«<»%iai ^ mtH PRINCETON, N. J. % BV 220 .E3 1883 Ecigar, R. McCheyne Does God answer prayer? Shelf...... JMtimoer... :Il^ ';i-^. %■ *■ Iv ;? ■■'.-, . / ;mfc?" Wi\t ttfjcotosical i,i'farar?). DOES GOD ANSWER PRAYER? THE THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. The need of a concise and ivell-iuritten Series of Books on the chief doctrines of Christianity is generally recognised. Hence it is intended to issue, at convenient intervals, a series of small books on the doctrines which recent debate has brought prominently before the public mind. These volumes will be condensed in expression, biblical in doctrine, catholic in spirit, and by competent writers. The following is a list of the volumes, price 3J-. (^d. each. SUBJECTS. Does Science Aid Faith in re- gard TO Creation ? Life : Is it Worth Living ? Are Miracles Credible? . Is God Knowable? Is Dogma a Necessity? What is Regeneration? . Is Christ Divine? Does God Answer Prayer ? What is Saving Faith? . What is the Scripture Doc- trine OF THE Body? . A UTHORS. Rt. Rev. Henry Cotterill, D.D., Bishop of Edinburgh. Rev. J. Marshall Lang, D.D. Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A Rev. /. Lverach, M.A. Rev. Prebendary Meyrick, M.A. Rev. Principal Angns, D.D. Rev. T. Whitela-cv, M.A. Rev. R. McCheyne Edgar, M.A. Rev. Prof J.J. Given, M.A., D.D. Rev. Hen^y George To?nkins. Does God Answer Prayer? BY THE REV. R. McCHEYNE EDGAR, M.A, AUTHOR OF "the PHILOSOPHY OF THE CROSS," ETC. HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. MDCCCLXXXIII. [Allrio^hts reserved.} Hazell, Watson and Viney, Printers, London and Aylesbury, TO THE REV. HENRY WALLACE, PROFESSOR OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS IN THE PRESBYTERIAN COLLEGE, BELFAST, AUTHOR OF " REPRESENTATIVE RESPONSIBILITY, A LAW OF THE DIVINE PROCEDURE IN PROVIDENCE AND REDEMPTION," ETC. Dear Professor Wallace, — I deem it a great privilege to be allowed to associate your name with this little book. By all who know you well, you are regarded as the greatest living master of the art of analogical reasoning. Butler's method is not deemed by you, as it is by some less thorough thinkers, an ana- chronism in our present stage of progress ; on the contrary, you believe it capable of most profitable extension, and still the great philosophical defence of the Christian faith. It is the analogical argument which is employed in the present essay. You have been good enough to read over the proofs and to express your approval of the general course of argument they contain. You say most truly that ' ' verification is the great difficulty " and, in venturing to handle this part of the subject, I have not been un- mindful of the circumstance that the outstanding facts, which I maintain fairly imply the efficacy of prayer, have received explanations excluding the idea of its eflicacy altogether. All we can do in such circumstances is to abide by the more reasonable explanation. But as everything depends on the moral attitude we take up in the inquiry, I would respectfully solicit attention to the "Epilogue" before judgment is passed upon the " Verification." You have expressed yourself very cordially about the value of Note H, in the Appendix, in which the proposed Hospital Test is treated more fully than was possible when drafting the text. It was written in 1872, when the proposal was made, but has lain among my papers until now. I am grateful for your verdict on it, and hope it may secure attention to it, though it has been relegated to the Appendix. It only remains for me to tender to you in this public manner the gratitude I feel for the encouragement and sympathy you have extended to me for a long series of years. I remain, dear Professor Wallace, Yours most faithfully, R. McCHEYNE EDGAK. Dublin, September 2\th, 1883. CONTENTS. PART I. INTRODUCTORY. CHAPTER I. THE NATURAL HISTORY OF PRAYER. PAGE \ I. The question stated ........ 5 2. Logical deduction to be distinguished from observation of facts ......... 3. The natural history and the ground in reason quite distinct 4. Prayer the rule, prayerlessness the exception 5. The "Ancestral Savage " of Mr. Spencer, and his dreams 6. Degradation to be acknowledged as well as development 7. Reasonableness of prayer acknowledged even by Professor Tyndall . . " . 8. Current confusion of the origin with the reason of things 9. Attacks on prayer usually made by avowed agnostics 10. Prayer admittedly imperfect, yet reasonable as an exercise CHAPTER n. A PRAYERLESS WORLD. 1. If prayerlessness prevailed — what then? . . . .19 2. Prayerlessness enforced at Babylon, a failure . . . • 19 3. A prayerless religion 20 viii Contents. § 4. What shall be done with ' ' Houses of Prayer " ? . . .20 5. Nature-worship and human nature -worship . . . .21 6. Science and art, the only religion then left us . . . 23 7. Can resignation and gratitude survive? . . . . .24 8. Pessimism and Nihilism defeating resignation . . .26 9. Can we feel grateful to an impersonal Cosmos ? . . -27 10. Discourtesy and barbarism ....... 27 1 1 . Heroes wanted for the new worship ..... 28 12. A Perfect Being essential to the continuance of human progress. ......... 29 13. The huge workshop and the continued struggle for existence . 30 CHAPTER HI. THE METHOD OF DISCUSSION. § I, How the existence oi persons is known .... 2. Analogy our only method 3 Personality cannot be ignored ..... 4. Our own brains not under our observation 5. Signs analogically interpreted 6. Knowledge of the lower animals is through analogy 7. Animality and spirituality in ourselves, the foundation of all our knowledge about other beings .... 8. The argument to higher intelligences than ourselves 9. The world of sense really a world of analogical signs 10. Unemotional works do not imply heartless men 1 1 . Analogical reasoning must be carried as far as the signs warrant 39 12. Nature rational, and so a sign of Supreme Intelligence . . 40 13. The action of the spiritual upon the physical not miraculous . 41 14. Nature emVjodying superhuman /c;;r^ 43 15. The superhuman Intelligence and Will 44 16. The alternative alone possilile is chance . . . '45 34 34 35 36 36 Z1 37 38 39 Contents. ix PART II. EFFICACIOUS PRAYER A LAW OF NATURE. CHAPTER IV. THE REIGN OF LAW. FACE I. The scientific objections resolve themselves into the afhinica- tion of a reign of law . . . . . . -Si 2. " Reign of Law " an abstraction from the reality of things . 52 3. Present knowledge of law comparatively small . . -54 4. " Laws of nature " have no independent power, but need agents 55 5. The mechanical analogy may mislead ..... 57 6. We are personally not machines . . . . . -59 7. God's relation to the "reign of law" . . . . .60 8. "Uniformity of nature" and "persistence of the sybttm " have an ethical basis ....... 60 9. " Conservation of energy " cannot include the spiritual . . 61 10. " Perpetual motion " impossible, and so the present system temporary ......... 62 CHAPTER V. "THE LAW OF LIBERTY." 1. "Reign of Law " not an imposed tyranny 2. The liberty enjoyed by each substance in nature . 3. Freedom to be distinguished from otitlazcry . 4. Variation in vegetable kingdom an illustration of liberty 5. Animals free; the "struggle for existence" a collision of liberties ......... 6. Animal liberty enlarged through domestication and training 7. Liberty in man ; automatism untenable 8. Assaults on human freedom in the interests of science . 9. The odium anti-tJiCclogicuin ...... 10. Sins against the laws of Nature in exercise of freedom . 11. Civilization is enlarged liberty through obedience to law 12. The Supreme law is Love ...... 13. Man not called to be a conjurer to prove his freedom 14. Freedom consciously enjoyed " within the bounds of law" 67 67 68 68 69 69 71 72 74 75 75 76 77 78 X Contents. CHAPTER VI. THE LAW OF PRAYER. § 1. Nature constructed on the prayer plan .... 2. Prayer defined — expression of want in hope of its supply 3. Animals appealing to man, and receiving answers 4. Our interpretation of their prayers and revelation of our answers 5. Prayer as existing among men ..... know work 81 81 82 83 84 6. Prayers to doctors, and prayers by doctors in their treatment 85 7. Courtesy a field of prayer 86 8. Intellectual inquiries and experiments are prayers . . '87 9. Propitiation as existing in nature ...... 87 10. Intercessory prayer among animals and among men . . 88 11. Inevitable conclusion is that prayer is a law of nature with its sphere as well as its limits like other laws . . .89 PART III. EFFICACIOUS PRAYER A PRIVILEGE OF THE KINGDOM OF GRACE. CHAPTER VII. GOD TO BE RECOGNIZED AND ADDRESSED AS FREE 1. Grace an element in the system of nature 2. Grace in the field of courtesy .... 3. The Divine freedom 4. Free among His own laws of which He has perfect ledge ........ 5. His resource infinite ...... 6. Even granting that miracles have ceased. He can wonders through His perfectly understood laws 7. Divine ideas not exhausted at creation . 8. Babbage's theory a mechanical analogy 9. An inactive Deity not the highest type . 95 96 96 97 99 99 99 lOI 102 Contents. xi § lo. The Divine faithfulness saving His creatures from intellectual confusion ......... 103 II. Miraculous and non-miraculous, so administered as to keep clear thinkers from intellectual confusion .... 104 CHAPTER VHI. GOD TO BE RECOGNIZED AND ADDRESSED AS SOCIAL. ; I. God social as well as free ...... 2. The question of sex ....... 3. Division of function to secure sociality .... 4. Sociality only perfect between equals .... 5. Physical well-being demands sociality .... 6. Intellectual well-being requires it also , . 7. Moral well-being demands it most of all 8. The social element in God — Nature a sign of His sociality 9. And human nature with its acknowledged inspirations . 10. All nature bespeaks a social God .... 109 109 no III 112 112 "3 114 "5 117 CHAPTER IX. GOD TO BE RECOGNIZED AND ADDRESSED AS SELF-SUFFICING. i I. God's grace depends on His self-sufficiency . . . .121 2. The" Lonely God" of Dr. Martineau and the Hegelians . I2i 3. Professor Grote's idea of Divine " Egence " .... 124 4. If Creation were a Divine necessity, the moral system becomes imperilled ......... 125 5. Creator and creature are then only "fellows in misfortune" 125 6. The Trinity saves the system . . . . . .126 7. The absolute self-sufficiency of the Triune God . . .126 8. Creation and Providence are thus manifestations of Grace . 127 9. Prayer as between the Persons of the Godhead . . . 128 10. Efficacious Prayer as between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost . 129 11. Prayer with men is their fellowship with God in His ineffable Communion 129 xii Contents. PART IV. VERIFICATION. CHAPTER X. THE BIBLE, A POSITIVE PROOF THAT PRAYER HAS BEEN EFFICACIOUS. PAGE § I. Is verification possible ? ....... 135 2. The hospital test 135 3. Its scientific, anthropomorphic, and theological absurdity . 136 4. Mr. Galton's irrelevant statistics . . . . . - ^Zl 5. The sphere of "experiment" in prayer .... 138 6. Why prayer should not be visibly efficacious . . .139 7. Yet prayer-products abound as facts around us . . . 140 8. The Bible a prayer-product ....... 141 9. Inspiration literary and biblical . . . . . .141 10. The Bible not intelligible on purely natural principles . . 142 11. The Book a prayer-product or an opaque fact . . . 143 CHAPTER XL THE LIFE OF CHRIST, ANOTHER POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER. § I. The life of Christ superior to the Book product . . . 147 2. Real and not invented ........ 147 3. The dependence of Jesus 148 4. Prayerful in His whole course 149 5. The SINLESSNESS of Jesus a proof of efficacious prayer . . 149 6. The MIRACLES of Jesus another proof ..... 150 7. Their compatibility with the "reign of law " on which science now relies . . . . . . . . .151 8. The ORIGINALITY of Christ's character and teaching another proof 152 9. Christ's prayers always efficacious . . . . •153 10. Christ's DOCTRINE about prayer might also be pressed . .153 Contents. xiii CHAPTER XII. THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY ANOTHER POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER. PAGE § I. Christianity a prayer-product too . . . . . '157 2. Its sphere mainly among the poor . . . . . 157 3. The fate of the apostles cannot accomit for their testimony . 158 4. Worldliness never a large factor in Christian progress . .158 5. The title " Christian " and " suffering as a Christian " . . 159 6. Unvvorldliness of Christianity implies the efficacy of prayer . 160 7. Martyrdom only demonstrates the sincerity of the sufferers, but not the truth of their faith 162 8. Variations in prayerfulness among Christians — the consolation found by incurables in prayer . . . • . .164 CHAPTER XIII. THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION, ANOTHER POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER. § I. Buckle's and Comtes mistakes about civilization . • . .167 2. Draper's physiological theory . . . . . .167 3. His neglect of definition and of thoroughness . . . 169 4. Civilization promoted not by " natural selection " but by the labours of great men 169 5. Christianity the prime civilizing factor . . . . .170 6. The contributions to civilization of even the Catholic Age . 172 7. The debt of civilization to Protestantism . . . '174 8. Modern missions as civilizing factors . . . . -174 9. Science not essentially civilizing . . . . . -175 10. Civilization is a prayer product so far as Christianity has promoted it 175 CHAPTER XIV. THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT A FINAL POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER. § I. Scientific spirit a growth and not an instinct .... 179 2. Its elements in love for nature and a belief in its rationality . 179 XIV Contents, 3. Greeks deficient in a love for nature 4. Greeks failed in physical research 5. Any scientific attainment due to the idealists 6. Love for nature an Oriental product 7. Architecture and art in the Middle Ages 8. The love for nature imported into Europe by the Church 9. Nature regarded as "the sleeping Logos" . 10. The mistakes of the Church . .... 11. Yet the scientific spirit indebted to the Christian spirit PAGE 180 181 . 181 . 182 . 183 . 183 . 184 . 184 PART V EPILOGUE. § I . Pharisaic doubt about the efficacy of prayer . 2. Prayer of pride and selfishness deserves no answer 3. Patriotism may be selfish and so repulsive 4. God righteously rejects the proud 5. The meek and lowly enjoying answers to prayer . 6. Christ's gospel of fatherhood and brotherhood 7. The want of self-abasement in the inquiry 8. Sin's separating power ...... 9. Intellectual luxury ...... 10. The blinding power of intellectual self-indulgence . 11. Nature speaks according to our frame of mind 12. Mysteries laid at the feet of God .... 13. Prayer can hinder no science properly so called . 14. Expectation tempered by the scientific spirit 15. Temporal blessings within limits to be prayed for . 16. Philanthropy, the spirit of effectual prayer . 17. Optimism of the prayerful versus the pessimism of the prayerless 18. Debates better than demonstration 19. But no one is convinced against his will 20. The question answered affirmatively Contents. xv APPENDIX. PAGE Note A. The impartiality of the Christian spirit .... 207 B. The charge of anthropomorphism 211 C. The five senses of "law" according to the Duke of Argyll 213 D. Free-will ......... 214 E. Physical causes compatible with chaos just as well as with a cosmos ......... 215 F. Dialogue and not soliloquy in prayer . . . .216 G. " God most blessed for ever " ..... 217 H. The hospital test of the efficacy of prayer . . .217 I. Experience the true proof of Christianity . . . 229 J. The miracles of Jesus Christ ...... 230 K. On the wisdom of miracles ceasing ..... 234 L. On alleged healing by prayer ..... 234 M. The doctrine of Christ on the subject of prayer . . 236 N. Tolera' ion of Christians terminated by Jews . . . 246 O. Gibbon's five natural causes for the progress of Christianity 247 P. The succession of saints . . . . . ' . 247 Q. Certainty through experience . . . . . 249 R. Christendom the true embodiment of self-renunciation . 249 S History of the controversy ...... 250 PART I. CONTENTS OF PART I. CHAP. I. THE NATURAL HISTORY OF PRAYER. ,, II. A PRAYERLESS WORLD. ,, III. THE METHOD OF DISCUSSION. CHAPTER I. THE NATURAL HISTORY OF PRA YER. CHAPTER I. THE NA TURAL HISTORY OF PR A YER. § I. \ "\ /E deem it unnecessary to make any apology in V V proposing to reconsider the problem of Prayer. Its importance cannot be overrated. If it be reasonable to believe in the existence of a great Spirit, whose intelligence, sensibility, and power of will are infinite, who is self- sufficing in His personality and yet pre-eminently social in His character, then prayer to Him cannot but be a most important element in human experience and factor in human progress. If, on the other hand, it can be shown to be unreasonable and superfluous to posit any such personality at the back of things, truth demands that prayer should be denounced as an irrational superstition, and every effort short of brute force made to eliminate it from the world. The question we have judicially to consider, and, if possible, decide, is, which of these alter- natives is warranted by the facts already discovered ? § 2. With the facts, then, let it be understood, no sane man can have any quarrel. But unfortunately there is a danger of mere efforts of the imagination and unwarranted inferences being passed off, consciously or unconsciousl}^, as facts ; and the business of the inquirer is to sift the allegations, and make sure, if clear thinking can enable him to do so, that no unfounded assumption be introduced into 6 Docs God Answer Prayer ? the settlement of such a vital question. Our business, in a word, is critical. We accept gratefully the facts brought lo light by science, and we inquire carefully into the conclusions based upon them. In the domain of logic we are, if clear in our thinking, on equal terms with the scientific observer. We do not accept his conclusions from the facts unless they have been logically deduced. We cheerfully allow him superiority in observation, while we reserve our right as rational beings to judge of the deductions he makes from the facts which his superior observation has ascertained. § 3. Now the present age is pre-eminently one of Natural History. The impression prevails that unless we know the natural history of objects, of rites, ceremonies, customs, and the like, we know little or nothing in reality about them. Hence the prime inquiry now is hoiv things came about ; what has been the order of their development ? Hume, for example, gave us in his time the " Natural History of Religion " ; and in comparatively recent years Isaac Taylor has given us the '' Natural Histor}^ of Enthusiasm," W. E. H. Lecky the '' Natural History of Morals," introductory to his " History of European Morals," and John Stuart Blackie, the '' Natural History of Atheism," while, only to mention another name, we have received, in the voluminous writings of Herbert Spencer, Natural History in the garb of a philosophy, the impression conveyed by his comprehensive series being that in the natural history of an all-embracing Evolution wc have everything which man has in his present condition any right to know. Now we have no objection to conform so far to the spirit of the age as to start with the Natural History of prayer. By all means let us know how prayer was developed. Every well-ascertained fact about it is Prayer s Reasonableness, 7 precious and instructive, and will help us in reaching an intelligent conclusion regarding it. But we must at the same time remember that the reasonableness of praj'^er and its natural histofy constitute tw^o distinct questions, which ought not to be confounded. A single quotation from David Hume will place this caveat in clear and unmistak- able light. At the very outset of his '' Natural History of Religion " he says : '* As every inquiry, which regards religion, is of the utmost importance, there are two questions in particular which challenge our attention, to wit, that concerning its foundation in reason, and that concerning its origin in human nature. Happily, the first question, which is the most important, admits of the most obvious, at least the clearest, solution. The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent Author ; and no rational inquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Rehgion. But the other question, concerning the origin of religion in human nature, is exposed to some more difficult3^" We found no argument here upon Hume's admission of the reasonableness of Theism, although his testimony is unexceptionable. We simply insist that the distinction he here draws with his usual clearness between the foundation of religion in reason and its natural history shall also be recognized in the discussion of Prayer. § 4. When we ask the authorities, then, for information regarding the natural history of Prayer, we are thankful to be assured that *' its study does not demand that detail of fact and argument which must be given to rites in comparison practically insignificant." * In truth prayer has been so general a practice during man's historic period, and is so universal a practice now, that no other conclusion * Tylor's " Primitive Culture," vol. ii., p. 330. 8 Does God Answer Prayer ? regarding it is possible than that it is the rule, while prayerlessness is the rare exception. We are indeed told of "many races who distinctly admit the existence of spirits, but are not certainly known to pray to them even in thought," '•' but when we look for definite statements, the prayerless races become almost a vanishing quantity. Thus Sir John Lubbock affirms that ''the lower forms of rehgion are almost independent of prayer,' but on reading further we find that this general statement rests on a deduction rather than on an induction, for he immediately adds, " To us prayer seems almost a necessary part of religion. But it evidently involves a belief in the goodness of God, a truth which, as we have seen, is not early recognized." t He mentions further on two interesting facts about prayerless races, which we give in his own words. " Even those negroes, says Bosman, who have a faint conception of a higher deity, do not pray to him, or offer any sacrifices to him ; for which they give the following reasons : ' God/ say they, ' is too high exalted above us, and too great to cendescend so much as to trouble himself, or think of mankind.' " And again Sir John tells us that the Caribs considered that the good Spirit '' is endued with so great goodness, that it does not take any revenge even of its enemies, whence it comes that they render it neither honour nor adoration. "J It would seem, then, so far as regards the historic period, that prayerlessness has been the exception. Only some astute tribes, far down in the scale of civilization, and some astute spirits at the summit, on so-called rational grounds, * Tylor, id supra. t Sir John Lubbock's " Origin of Civilisatit)n ami Primitive Condition of Man," p. 288. X Ibid., p. 289. Prayerlessness an Erratic Condition. 9 refuse to pray. The vast majority of men lying between have recognized a higher being or higher beings, and have tried to hold fellowship by prayer. Even Buddha himself, on setting out upon his mission of monkish meditation and Oriental stoicism, is represented as invoking all the Buddhas, or, as it has been translated, the Universal Spirit ; and the prayer-mills, by which his followers reduce communion with their Buddha to a matter of machinery, exhibit the prayer- impulse in striking strength.* We may with confidence, therefore, affirm, as M. de Quatrefages says of Atheism, that prayerlessness is nowhere met with '' except in an erratic condition. In every place, and at all times, the mass of popula- tions have escaped it."t § 5. But when we pass into the prehistoric period, and accept the dim light of scientific theor}^, we are assured that man was originally in such a state of ''utter barbarism" as not merely to be destitute of any kind of religion and any form of prayer, but even to be ignorant of his posses- sion of a soul. It is hard to realize such utter animalism on the part of man, but it is best to make the attempt, that we may if possible seize the prayer-impulse at its inception. Accepting the assistance of Mr. Herbert Spencer, then, we are introduced to the " ancestral savage." He lived, like animals a little lower in the scale of existence, by the chase, but after some unusually successful expedition he over-ate himself, had what we now call the nightmare, and a peculiarly vivid dream. In dreamland he recognized an " other-self," distinct from the material body. A dualism is suggested to his opening mind. He next remarked that * Cr. J. S. Blackie's '* Natural History of Atheism," p. 137 ; see also Scrihncrs Mo ) it hly Magazine, vol. xxii., p. 733, upon "The Wheel as a Symbol in Religion,'" by C. F. G. Gumming. t Cf. his " Human Species," pp. 482-3. lo Does God Anszuer Prayer? stones and trees and animals cast shadows ; they conse- quently possessed a dualism too. The idea of spirits is now fairly abroad, and, when death presented itself to some of the ancestral savage's neighbours, he began to think of the neighbour's "other-self" becoming a ''wandering double " in the silent realm beyond the perceptions of sense. It was easy to associate epileptic fits and insanity, when they occurred, with these released spirits, and it was desirable to propitiate them ; and thus it came quite naturally to pass that out of dreams a spiritual world got manufactured, and religious rites and ceremonies with all their vast and inte- resting development.-'' It has been said, with a severity not undeserved, that this dream theory '' needs no criticism. It assumes that men in general are fools ; and there is nothing to do but to return the compliment."t Nevertheless, we are anxious to avail ourselves of whatever light the investiga- tions of the ethnologists can cast on the origin of prayer. We turn consequently to Mr. Tylor, and find the following as his rationale of its rise and progress. " Prayer," he says, '' ' the souls' sincere desire, uttered or unexpressed,' is the address of personal spirit to personal spirit. So far as it is actually addressed to disembodied or deified human souls, it is simply an extension of the daily intercourse between man and man ; while the worshipper, who looks up to other Divine beings, spiritual after the nature of his own spirit, though of place and power in the universe far beyond his own, still has his mind in a state where prayer is a reason- able and practical act. ... It is not indeed claimed as an immediate or necessary outcome of animistic belief, % for '^ Cf. Herbert Spencer's " Principles of Sociology," vol. i., pp. 147—440. t Prof. 13. P. Bowne's " Studies in Theism," p. 80. \ i.e,^ Belief in spirits such as has been already described. Degradation Exists. 1 1 especially at low levels of civilization there are many races who distinctly admit the existence of spirits, but are not certainly known to pray to them even in thought. Beyond this lower level, however, animism and prayer become more and more nearly conterminous, and a view of their relation in their earlier stages may be easiest and best gained from a selection of actual prayers, taken down word for word, within the limits of savage and barbaric life. They agree with an opinion that prayer appeared in the religion of the lower culture, but that in this, its earliest stage, it was unethi- cal. The accomplishment of desire is asked for ; but desire is as yet limited to personal advantage. It is at later and higher moral levels that the worshipper begins to add to his entreaty for prosperity the claim for help toward virtue and against vice, and prayer becomes an instrument of morality.'"'' It will be observed that Mr. Tylor regards prayer as the projection into a spiritual realm of the intercourse which takes place in this world between man and man. We wish this fact to be noted in passing, as it will prove useful in our investigation afterwards. § 6. It would be unfair not to notice the criticism to which this theory of man's development from a condition of " utter barbarism" has been subjected. It is contended that it almost altogether ignores the possibility and actual fact of degradation, as well as of development. Man has a tendency to relapse into a degraded condition from a higher, just as in lower animals the tendency has been observed to revert to the original type. Nay more, it has been pertinently pointed out that man descends in his savagery to a lower stage than is found among the beasts below him. For his cruel treatment of women, for example, we have no analogue among the beasts. It is manifestly unfair, * " Primitive Culture," vol. ii., pp. 329 — 330. 12 Does God Answer Prayer? therefore, in a discussion upon the natural history of man, to give so much about human development, and to say almost nothing about human degradation. Of course the introduction of this second factor complicates the problem, and detracts from its extraordinary simplicity. Yet with such cumulative evidence of human degradation around us, we cannot accept the account of man's leisurely progress upwards without pause or relapse as covering all the facts.* But even granting that the natural history of prayer has been the simple matter these theorists suppose, we must not imagine that we have got therein the reason for the exercise. This seems to be the mistake into which many at present fall. From the quotation already given from Hume, it will be seen that the reasonableness of religion and the origin are totally distinct questions. It was not because he had lost sight of the reasonableness of religion that in his book he restricted himself to its Natural History, but, strange to say, because he thought its reasonableness beyond question ! In the very same way we must clearly distinguish between the origin of prayer and its grounds in reason. Its origin may be most insignificant or most obscure, its natural history may have been marked by much misconception and illusion, and yet it may be the most reasonable exercise in which intelligent beings can engage. §7. It may "be amusing as well as instructive to trace the natural history of prayer upwards, from the rude an- cestor who first appealed to unseen helpers above him to those rapturous devotees who on the hills of Palestine gave * C(. "Primeval Man." by the Duke of Argyll, pp. 129— 200 ; his Grace's papers in the ConUinpomry Reviciv on " The Unity of Nature" ; and Eraser's "Blending Lights," pp. 141—194- Tyndall admits Prayers Reasonableness. 13 us the crowning triumphs of devotion;* but it has nothing really to say as to the present reasonableness of Prayer. And indeed one of the chief critics of Christian prayer, in endeavouring to demonstrate that '' physical nature is not its legitimate domain," acknowledges that " this conclusion must be based on pure physical evidence, and not on any inherent unreasonableness in the act of prayer. The theory that the system of nature is under the control of a Being who changes phenomena in compliance with the prayers of men, is, in my opinion, a perfectly legitimate one. It may, of course, be rendered futile by being associated with con- ceptions which contradict it ; but such conceptions form no necessary part of the theory. It is a matter of experience that an earthly father, who is at the same time both wise and tender, listens to the requests of his children, and, if they do not ask amiss, takes pleasure in granting their requests. We know also that this compliance extends to the alteration, wdthin certain limits, of the current of events on earth. With this suggestion offered by experience, it is no departure from scientific method to place behind natural phenomena a Universal Father, who, in answer to the prayers of His children, alters the currents of those phenomena. Thus far Theology and Science go hand in hand."t Of course our critic proceeds to assert that we fail in the verification of our theory, upon w^hich point we shall have something to say further on. Meanwhile we simply call * Ewald thinks that it was during the captivity prayer first gained importance among the Hebrews. A good account of prayer among the Hebrews is given by Pressel in Herzog's " Real Encyclopadie.' " Delitsch" is also worthy of perusal sub "Gebet" in Riehm's " Hand- worterbuch des Biblischen Altertums." t Tyndall's ** Fragments of Science," sixth edition, vol. ii., pp. 42 — 43. The italics are ours, 14 Does God Answer Prayer? attention to the fact that Professor Tjmdall here acknow- ledges that there is no '' inherent unreasonableness in the act of prayer." § 8. It is needful at the present time especially to em- phasize this distinction between the origin and the reason of things. We find the confusion of these ideas in the works of some of our subtlest thinkers. It was this con. fusion which led Locke to claim that '' philosophical study must begin with an inquiry into the origin of our ideas." Kant fell into it when he insisted on a criticism of the faculty and process of knowing preceding metaphysics. Mill fell into it in his Examination of Hamilton, when he admits the infallibility of primitive beliefs, only raising doubts as to what beliefs are truly primitive. ''He thinks/' says an able writer, '' that if we could look into the mind of the baby, as it lies in the nurse's arms, we should get the original philosophic revelation. Others again, haunted by the notion of heredity and evolution, are at a loss whether to look for this original element in the first polyp or in the primal star-dust ; but all alike are agreed that, if we could reach it, we should get at indisputable truth. But this is plainly a mistake. It is not self-evident that the innate must be true. It is not self-evident that the baby, or the polyp, or the ancient star-dust, is a spring of pure and undefiled knowledge. Hence, after a proposition has been shown to be innate, the question of its truth remains open ; and this question can be answered only by looking away from the psychological question of origin to the philosophic question of the grounds of the belief Indeed, it would be hard to find a doctrine so out of harmony with every one of the current tendencies of thought as this one, which seeks for truth in the raw rudiments of consciousness rather than in its full manifestation. Every conception of Agnostics not Impartial. 15 progress, every form of evolution, every analogy of nature, point rather to the opposite view— namely, that our faculties are most trustworthy in their developed form, and not in their crude beginnings."" It is clear, therefore, that no lengthening out of the natural history of such a matter as prayer can ever do away with the necessity of facing the more important question of the rationality of it. We are not concerned with the many misconceptions and illusions which may have marked the history of prayer's develop- ment, but we are concerned with the question. Does a personal God exist ? and if He does, Can He reward those who diligently seek Him ? § 9. That this is the true way of stating the question at issue will further appear if we consider from what school the more recent attacks on the efficacy of prayer have proceeded. They have proceeded from avowed agnostics. When a physicist like Professor Tyndall stands sponsor for the proposal to test the efficacy of prayer by hospital statistics, we at once remember the wooden horse at Troy, and suspect the proposal. For if a man has come to the conclusion that God is " unknown and unknowable," if a man has accepted the notion that to ascribe " person- ality" to this Being behind all is to limit Him, then it is clear that the propriety of prayer has already been impugned by him, and he cannot face the question impartially.f His move must be suspected as strategic, however ''serious" its title may profess to be. J Hence we must accept the challenge as really an attack on current conceptions of God, * Prof. B. P. Bowne's "Metaphysics," pp. 13 — 14. t Appendix. Note A. \ The joint communication of Prof. Tyndall and his anonymous friend in the Conte?nporary Review was " The Prayer for the Sick : Hints towards a serious attempt to estimate its value^" 1 6 Does God Ansiver Prayer? and try to show how rational after all is our belief in His personality and in His power to hear and answer prayer. § lo. Prayer, let it be remembered, is admittedly im- perfect. Once only did it reach absolute perfection in the prayers of Him whom we call our Saviour, All other prayers have been but distant approaches towards the great ideal. But one principle is common to all sincere prayer, and it is this : '' He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." Hence the twofold question demanding an answer in this discussion is. Does a personal God exist ? and. Can He reward those who diligently seek Him ? We face these questions within the limits assigned to us, hoping to show that it is more reasonable to believe in a personal God than in an impersonal One; and that it is also more reasonable to believe that He can hold com- munion with intelligent beings, desires to do so, and has actually done so, than to believe that silence is intended to reign between earth and heaven ! CHAPTER II. A FRAYERLESS WORLD. CHAPTER II. A FKAYEKLESS WORLD. § I . "F7 ROM our brief study of the Natural History of X Prayer we have found that prayer has been the rule, and prayerlessness the rare exception, in the history of the human race. But before proceeding farther with the discussion, it may be well to pause, and to consider what the world would become \^ prayerlessness carried the day, and the minority who now maintain its wisdom suc- ceeded in making converts of the entire praying majority. It must be admitted that it would amount to an unparalleled revolution ; and an endeavour to estimate it will empha- size the great gravity of the present discussion. § 2. An effort was once made to bring about prayerless- ness by force. It was when Darius the Mede had ascended the throne of Babylon, and the world lay at his feet. To accomplish a spiteful purpose, the presidents and princes persuaded the unsuspecting monarch to pass a decree '' that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions." But the fear of the den of lions did not succeed in making the world prayerless. There was one man, at all events, who prized prayer so highly as to be willing to brave the lions rather than be forced to be a month without prayer. But we shall suppose that the crusade 20 Does God Answer Prayer ? against Prayer proves so successful that no Daniel shall come forth for judgment ; but the world on rational grounds will vote Daniel at Babylon, in his temporary sojourn with the lions, ''a martyr by mistake." We shall suppose that by force of reason alone the whole world will some day cease to pray ; we shall suppose farther, in accordance with the gradual character of human progress, that this prayer- lessness shall not be the effect of a sudden conversion of the race, but of a slow " enlightenment," and that the day at last dawns when prayer, which has lingered longest with " the poor, the widow, and the afflicted," has been hushed to silence — not a soul in this wide world any longer looking upwards. What would this prayerless world be ? § 3. Now we will not assert that the world, in such a case, would be without religion^ since the opponents o£ prayer wish us to understand that their aim in this matter is to provide men with an improved religion. We will not affirm that the world in such a case would be without worship, since our prayerless friends are emphatic about the reality and importance of that "worship, for the most part, of the silent sort," which ascends to a God, ''unknown and unknow- able." We shall simply try to estimate the kind of world prayerlessness is calculated to produce. Happily we have had some assistance recently aftbrded by writers on the other side, which will greatly help us in estimating this prayerless "religion of the future." § 4. It will be acknowledged that a prayerless world would not continue to tolerate such absurdities as '* houses of prayer." The author of " Ecco Homo " has indeed pro- posed, in his more recent work on " Natural Religion," to retain the churches, and the influence which gathers round them, as a temporary expedient until his eclectic " Natural Religion" gets full play; but wc must project our minds Nahire- Worship actnally advocated, 21 beyond such temporising policies, and consider plainly whether churches would be tolerated in a world which has ceased to believe in the propriety of prayer. In fact, this author has contemplated the disappearance of churches as a possibility, and aptly refers to the expression of St. John in the Apocalypse, about seeing no temple in the New Jerusalem. But how different the reason assigned for the existence of no church building above, " for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it " ! It is one thing to deem church buildings needless because pra3^er is an unmeaning superstition ; it is another to deem them needless because the Divine Presence is felt to be all- pervading and every activity is worship. It is, then, as certain as anything can be, that if prayerlessness carries the day, churches, with all the institutions which centre around them, will either be demolished or applied to other purposes than prayer. We are anxious to learn what substitute the religion of the future will propose for these acknow- ledged factors in our civilization. § 5. If the worship of God, as we commonly understand it, is to cease, and man deems it profitless to pray to " the unknown and unknowable," then, since man zui7/ worship something, there are two substitutes possible ; and these are nature-worship and hero-worship ; or, as we ought perhaps to put them, nature worship and human-nature- worship. We shall take them in this order. Naturc-ivorship, let it then be remembered, is in plain and unmistakable terms proposed. That is, if men have time for such a matter as worship. '' Apart from Pessimism," sdcys the author of " Natural Religion," '* there is nothing to prevent the most exclusive votary of science from worshipping. Not at any rate because there is no God to worship is science tempted to renounce worship ; but it ma}' be 2 2 Does God Answer^ Prayer? tempted by the necessity of concentration by the absorbing passion of analysis, by prudential limitation of the sphere of study, b}^ a mistaken fear of the snares of imagination." * But even if scientific men have no time for acts of nature- worship, their scientific pursuits are, it appears, to be interpreted as nature's true and accepted worship. Thus another recent writer says, '' Knowledge is the true pra3^er, the only one to which nature hearkens and responds, as the pursuit of knowledge is her true and accepted worship. B}^ knowledge alone man has been delivered from the forces and scourges and fatalities of nature; blind, and might}'', and destroying — fire and flood, lightning and tempest, plague and famine, shipwreck and untimely death. To appease the wrath of these awful and destructive powers of nature, the primitive man, supposing them deities or demons, in trembling fear built temples, and offered prayer and sacrifice of everything that could be conceived to appease offended deities, in vain ; while modern man, by a knowledge of nature's laws, not only averts her anger, but converts her most formidable forces into his powerful servants. Thus, by knowledge only he has performed the miracle of taming the blind and inanimate forces of nature, much more difficult to subdue than the animals or savage beasts, and utterly insensible to supplication, or prayer, or sacrifice. Let us only know her conditions, and accept them, and nature will be propitious indeed. Where she had else been our scourge and destroyer, she will give us all things liberally to enjoy. And who are they who have enabled us to placate nature, the priests of this true worship who have made atonement, the mediators between ordinary men and nature who have rendered her propitious ? The priests have been the discoverers and inventors in the - Pp. 93-4. Nature s Priests and Shrines. 23 sciences and the arts; the temples, nature herself; and the inner shrines where the worship has been carried on have been the laboratory and the observatory, the study of the natural philosopher and inventor, and the workshop of the engineer." * § 6. Nature^worship, then, let us understand, in a prayer- less world is likely to degenerate into an individual pursuit of the knowledge of nature. Lyceum lectures will take the place of public worship. The priests of nature will prosecute her worship in their enshrined laboratories ; and the common people will be invited to their seances. With more or less cordiality the priests will make their last discoveries public property, and doubtless for very tangible considerations. If the priest of nature be a poet into the bargain, like Goethe, his worship may take the form of art, and he may give expression in rhythmic sentences to his admiration of the order of the universe. Or if he be a painter, he may embody upon canvas the impressions of beauty which nature has made upon him. But beyond this union at Lyceum lectures to admire nature and her priests in science and in art, there can in the very nature of the case be no religious communion or public wo: ship among men. Admiration of order in these circumstances will be the solitary religious bond of society ; and he would be a sanguine prophet who would predict society holding for an}'' length of time together on such terms. Even sup- posing that our most magnificent churches, instead of being demolished because of their associations, were fitted up for scientific lectures, and art collections, and exhibitions of machinery, and that the priests of nature took the place of the ministers of God, could they hold the people in any kind of unity, or bind society together through rapture over * Cf. Graham's " Creed of Science," p. 236. 24 Does God Answer Prayer ? the cosmos ? If we ma}^ judge from the experience of the present, " the rehgion of the future " will not run any such career of popular influence and unifying power as Chris- tianity has done. The knowledge of nature will be found an utterl}' insufficient basis for the union of mankind. § 7. It has indeed been urged that resignation and grati- tude must be fostered by the knowledge of nature. To quote again from Mr. Graham : " Science will bring not only material, but spiritual comforts and alleviation. It will bring both truth and fruit ; truth, in itself; fruit, from its indefinite adaptability to the material wants and wishes of man, as well as from its further application to the con- duct of life. Science in itself is the true, in its application is the good. The truths of science will save you ; in the sequel they will save the world ; they alone can do so. They will save your soul, in the only sense in which it can be saved, by pointing out to it the right way of life ; by giving to it a fuller, freer, better life on the earth, the only certain theatre of its existence and activity ; by giving to it light ; by supplying it with sustaining and strengthen- ing truths ; — in a word, by showing it the universal empire of law, which embraces both it and the cosmos, the know- ledge of which is the sum of truth, and to accommodate ourselves to which is the sum of wisdom and virtue. And this truth will not only save you ; it will set you free, as it is ever the work of truth to do. It will set you free by delivering j^ou from the vain fears and terrors and super- stitions which so long held the soul of man in degrading bondage, adding their formidable terrors to the miseries of life. It will further set you free within the bounds of natural law, by enabling you to accomplish your desired ends the surer the more you know the unvarying course of things ; to which, on the one hand, 3^our aims must be accom- Scientific Resignation. 25 modated, but which, on the other, can be indefinitely turned to serve you. Our perturbed spirits shall at length find rest under the rdgn of ascertained truth, and universal, unvarying law. Our minds shall also be at peace with respect to the final insoluble mj^ster}^ of the universe, into which not even the angels can penetrate. We shall give up the attempts to solve it, accepting it as a final fact, and being content with a knowledge of the general laws of phenomena. This knowledge of the order of the w^orld — of what we can know, and of what we must be content to be ignorant of — will bring back to us our banished peace of mind. The sweet serenity of spirit, the most precious jewel of our souls, wall return to us again. We shall take heart of grace ; and, knowing the liberal terms that nature allows to the wise, knowing at least more clearly than men ever knew before the conditions under which we live, — fixed and immutable in some directions, alterable in others, and by ourselves for our advantage, — w^e shall once again, as men born under former happy civilizations, put on a cheerful courage, and find enjoj^ment in existence. We shall no more go round bewailing our evil conditions, asking, Who will show us any good ? Our newborn pes- simism shall disappear, direful and phantasmal as our old superstitions. The spirit of man shall get rest after its long and searching probation, after all this feverish agitation and disquietude, prolonged for three centuries, respecting the nature, the origin, and the final destination of the soul. Resignation, the last, the greatest, and most difficult of the virtues, wnll follow under the new dispensation of natural law holding all things, the world, and man, and societ3Mn its embrace. Resignation to the unalterable evils of life, which the old Stoic strenuously tried to inculcate upon himself, which the religion of Islam prescribes as its central precept. 2 6 Does God Anszuer Prayer? which Christianity supplicates from Heaven, becomes almost for the first time a possible and natural frame of mind to man ; the lesson of science being borne in upon his mind from all sides, and by countless instances, that the course of nature, the laws of the universe, and the laws of life, from which certain evils must result, are fixed and unalter- able. It is natural, when we know that the order of the world is carried on under laws which will not change for our wishes or our prayers, to be resigned to the special evils which the general laws bring with them. It is natural to try to be resigned to the inevitable in any case, and it is wise ; but when we learn that some of the inevitable ills are the result of general laws wh^,ch bring a greater sum of good ; that others of our ills are not inevitable, but reducible in amount through the beneficial help of these very invariable laws, and the unchanging nature of things and properties of matter ; and that finally both the greater good, and the continual diminution of evil within limits, are only obtainable on the twofold condition of the invaria- bility of the laws joined to our knowledge of them ; — then the spirit of resignation to the order of things, which is demanded from us on account of the residuum of evil, becomes tempered with gratitude on account of the larger good." * § 8. Now it will be needful to analyse such an assertion, and to be quite sure that a resigned and grateful world will result from a prayerless use of Nature. The author of " Natural Religion " acknowledges that Science has Nihilism to face, which refuses to see in civilization au}^ progress, and wishes to overthrow it. Pessimism, let speculators blink it as they may, must wait as a spectre upon that philosophy which tells man to be resigned in the midst of * "The Creed of Science," pp. 229-231. Scientific Gratitttde, 27 a terrible "struggle for existence." Resignation may be cultivated and preached by the well-to-do under such a system, but the unfortunate cannot attain unto it. Unless, then, there is some other consolation for struggling and disappointed men than the abstraction of a '' reign of law," the vintage of resignation will be confined to sunlit zones of human experience. § 9. Again, when we turn to gratitude, we ask the pertinent question if such a grace be possible without a personal object or objects ? There is a danger in such discussions of falling into loose expressions which will not bear analj^sis. Can we be grateful to such abstractions as nature, law, and order? Can we be grateful to a machine? — Not unless we personify it. We can be grateful to an animal, but the line must be drawn somewhere, and it is absolutely impossible to be grateful to the inanimate and impersonal. It is mere poetry to pretend anything else. Hence this gratitude, which it is alleged Nature, with her reign of invariable law, fosters, turns out to be an impossibility without a personal object. In fact, the prayerlessness supposed is the manifestation of a thankless spirit. It is acknowledged there is a Power at the back of nature, but forsooth because He is supposed to be " un- known and unknowable," therefore we will utter no thanks before Him, nor trouble ourselves with His praise. His blessings are to be leceived as a matter of course, and no expression of gratitude to be returned for them. A prayerless population in the very nature of things is a thankless population, and, like the nine lepers who went off from Jesus in possession of their cure, they imagine they are under no obligation to express their thanks. § 10. But farther, if men come to believe that they may take from the Power behind nature all He is willing 2 8 Does God Ansiuer Prayer? to afford without the trouble of thanks, will not the discourtesy filter downwards through society ? The radi- calism which insists on not fearing God will make short work in life's struggles with the honour of the king. Prayer ceasing in the highest plane of experience will be less and less in fashion in the lower. Courtesy, which is an exchange of prayers, as we shall afterwards see, will fall under the same ban, and there is nothing in the '^ reign of law " to hinder man deteriorating steadily towards the age of barbarism. § II. But perhaps it will be said that, even supposing natitre-ii)orsJiip had the effects alleged, hero-worship will surely mitigate or prevent them. From the worship of nature, therefore, we turn for a time to the worship of human nature, to see what form it will take and what influence it will exercise in the supposed prayerless future. We may, then, dismiss the worship of humanity as the worship of an abstraction which practically proves valueless. The admiration of a pure abstraction is utterly insufficient to occupy or to unite the individuals of the race. The object of worship must be concrete. What individuals, then, shall be the heroes of the new and prayerless time ? Men can hardl}^ be expected to worship the average individual; this would be tantamount to self-worship. Now it so happens that the heroic has hitherto taken what we may con- veniently call the form of inspiration, and the mightiest men, even when not particularly pious, have acknowledged their obedience to some impulse from beyond and above. It is plain that in a prayerless world the prayerful heroes of the past, and even the heroes who believed only in their destiny and star, must give way to another class, to the scientific investigators who keep to nature, and worship nothing beyond her. The heroes of the eleventh chapter Pi^ayerless Heroes wanted. 29 of Hebrews, Christ Himself, the martyrs of the Christian faith, Luther, Knox, Milton, Cromwell, and such prayerful, meditative men even as Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and Faraday, must give way to heroes of a prayerless type. We do not profess to furnish the new list. It seems to us that the prayerless heroes have yet to be manufactured, and that the attention of savaiis should be directed especially to this matter. A world without prayer will need some compensation in the heroism of individual lives, but if all wisdom has concentrated into the idea of making life more comfortable through the prosecution of the study of nature, it is hard to see on what terms our heroes can be made. If resignation is not certain under the reign of changeless law, self-sacrifice, which we take to be of the essence of heroism, is not likely to be largely practised. § 12. But in addition it is to be observed that in limiting mankind to hero-worship, our savans are really blocking up the path of human progress. For in order to progress and mental satisfaction, we must have before us a Being so absolutely perfect, that we can never overtake Him, but can only follow after Him. Suppose that in its advancement the race came abreast of all its historic heroes — a suppo- sition not extravagant, surely, in an age of purely scientific progress — and no being could be discerned above the average and educated individual, it is plain that the stationary state would at once be realized, and progress, of necessity, must cease. We need, then, something more than the prayerless heroes, if human progress is to proceed. We need a Being who will remain high as a star above us at every possible stage in our advancement ; a Being who will be above our criticism ; a Being whom to appreciate is to adore ; then, and then only, is the progress of the race assured for ever- more. But let the conviction be borne in upon us that 30 Does God Answer Prayer? such a Being is beyond our range, outside all possibility of fellowship, and the foundations are laid broad and deep of despair. Hence we see that by no human eftbrt can deterioration be prevented upon the prayerless principle supposed. § 13. A prayerless world, then, can at best be but a huge workshop where nature undergoes perpetual analysis in the hope of making life more joyous. Her bounties, taken as a mere matter of course, will in such circumstances prove but a premium to the skilful and the strong. The struggle for existence will, as a principle, know no abatement, and the weaker will go with less pity and compunction to the wall. The heroic will have little field of operation ; the gospel of '' comfort " will have usurped the place of the gospel of self-sacrificing love ; and man's deterioration must result. Hence the question we are discussing is momentous. We believe that human welfare is bound up with it, and that it is of the last importance that the reasonableness of prayer should, if possible, be exhibited. To this we consequently would address ourselves. CHAPTER III. THE METHOD OF DISCUSSION. CHAPTER III. THE METHOD OF DISCUSSION. § I. \^ ^E have already seen that the questions claiming V V decision in this discussion are, Is it reasonable to believe that a personal God exists ? and if so, can He reward those who diligently seek Him ? It is plain, there- fore, that we must start with an inquiry into the existence oi persons. Can their existence be known ? and if so, how? Now by persons we do not mean the bodies of individuals. The personality and the corporeal person are totally distinct, and they should not be confounded. The following quota- tion from an able writer will put the exact meaning to be attached to "person" clearly before us. ''The relation of our w^ord ' person ' to the Latin word persona, both as regards sound and sense, is very apparent. The latter word meant a mask, such as is worn by an actor, and was so called from the mouthpiece through which' the actor's voice sounded. This mouthpiece was artificially constructed so as to increase the volume of sound. Next, the word meant a part or character played by an actor. Then, the word is transferred to the stage of life, and means the part or character sus- tained by any one in the world, especially a character imply- ing outward position or dignity. Finally, it was applied to a person or personage as an individual man, although, in almost all cases, with a tacit reference to station or character. 3 34 Does God Answer Praye7' ? The later use of the word persona by the Roman lawyers of the Empire comes nearer to the modern signification of the word person. It meant any human being, and was op- posed to the word res, a thing, a chattel. In this meaning it included all men, whether free or enslaved, dependent or independent, and implied the possession by all of rights and of consequent obligations. Thus it recognized man as a free agent, and therefore entitled to different treatment from a chattel. These rights might be artificially limited by slavery, but were always latent and inherent. And thus we find that freedom, and the capability of sustaining legal and moral relations to others, are the essential points com- mon to persona and person." " § 2. We desire, then, to ascertain how the existence of persons, understanding thereby realized personalities, can be known. The}'- do not reveal themselves directly to our sense-perception ; however little we may realize the fact, we can only reach the knowledge of their existence by an exercise of reason ; and the only method open to us is that of Analogy. Starting with our own personality, of which we are assured through self-consciousness, we reason analogically towards the existence of other personalities. At first sight, it seems strange to be assured that we do not perceive per- sons by the exercise of sense-perception, but a little clear thinking convinces us that we are led analogically to their existence from certain signs which we meet in the world of sense. § 3. The argument which we consciously or unconsciously conduct is from the known in ourselves to the unknown in others. Self-consciousness assures us of our own person- ality, and we assure ourselves next of the personality of others from the sensible signs, similar to those we produce " Cf. Bathgate's '• Deep Things of God," p. 52, Self -Consciousness verstis Physiology. 35 ourselves, of which they must be the source. We regard this position, which is virtually laid down by Bishop Berke- ley in his '' Minute Philosopher," as unassailable.* Now we must be quite decided upon the subject of our own person- ality. Such writers as Hume, Mill, and Bain have tried to dispense with it, and to substitute for it such phrases as a " bundle of states," " permanent possibilities of sensation," and such like ; but it will be found on carefully analysing their arguments that they assume the very thing they are so anxious to deny. As an acute writer has said of the works of Bain, '' Hundreds of sentences might be quoted in which the real m3^ster3'' of the Ego is quietl}'- assumed, and then made to assist in its own assassination." t We are conscious of sensations and of a subject who receives and analyses these sensations. This subject or Ego can take up the sensations for analysis or lay them down according to pleasure ; and, so far from being a mere effect of physical states, can tax the physical energies up to exhaustion or abstain from doing so, by virtue of its own inherent spiritual nature. While allied to our physical nature, our personality can take command of it, and need not be its slave. Oi spiritual as distinct from physical energy, we are assured by self- consciousness. % § 4. Besides, it is a mistake to imagine that we have our physical nature more directly under our observation than our spiritual nature, or that physiolog}^, rather than self- consciousness, will give us the true insight into ourselves. Take the case of our brain, for example, the organ of thought. It is not a matter of observation with any of us. * Cf. Dial, iv., §4, 5, etc. t "Personality, the Beginning and End of Metaphysics and a necessary Assumption in all Positive Philosophy," pp. 36-37. X Cf. Graham's "Creed of wScience," pp. 337-344. 36 Does God Answer Prayer ? We find brains in the skulls of the dead, and by experiments upon animals we are led to the conclusion that certain lobes and portions of the brain are connected with certain mental acts and states ; but, so far as our own brain is concerned, we are left entirely to analogy for any knowledge regarding it. * It is plain, therefore, that for the knowledge of our own personality we have the certainties of self-consciousness, while for the knowledge of the connection of our personality with our physical nature we are left entirely to analogical reasoning. § 5. If, then, analogy enters so largely into the knowledge of our own complex nature, we cannot be surprised if it plays a chief part in our knowledge of others. We reason analogically from the relations in which we find ourselves to other personalities as occupying similar relations. Subject to certain sensations, we are led to attribute these to per- sonalities akin to our own, because we have originated similar signs ourselves. We posit personalities like our own because our own personality has been the source of similar signs. We interpret the credentials, which the world of sense furnishes, as belonging to personalities similarly related to the world of sense with ourselves. § 6.' When further we analyse what it is we posit as personalities, we find they are reproductions of our own personality with the requisite modifications. So plain is this that the " history of consciousness " has been voted an absurdity on the ground that we simply translate our own developed consciousness to the different points in the history, and imagine how we should think, feel, and act in the altered circumstances. In the very same way all the knowledge we have of the consciousness of lower animals * Cf. "Theism and Modern Science," two Sermons by Dr. George Salmon, p. 26. Analogy the great Source of Knozv ledge. 37 is from analogy. We simply manipulate our own con- sciousness imaginatively to suit what we believe to have been, or to be, the animal's conditions, and then we attri- bute this to the animal. To be absolutely certain of the animal's consciousness we would require to become incar- nated in him. Only by a metempsychosis could absolutely certain knowledge in natural history be secured. Yet analogy supplies us with sufficient knowledge of the lower animals to guide us in our conduct towards them. While it is possible to say that animals may be mere machines, and may only simulate the pain human beings in analogous circumstances / world, as Kant maintains, or whether it lives and governs amongst the circle of phenomenal motives in our ordinary phenomenal world, as other metaphysicians hold, in either case a consequence very serious for science would result. The self, or ego, would be a first cause ; its exercise of free- will would be a miracle, and something extremely like the miracle of creation ex nihilo. It would be the production and exercise of a force or energy underived from any prior energy or from other source than itself, which, so far as we can attempt to conceive an inconceivable and impossible thing would be the mysterious and inexplicable process of creation from nothing. . . . If we grant free-will, we must be prepared for further consequences. We shall have once more the return of the miracle, everywhere else expelled from the field of science and history ; and this time all the more dangerous if the power of working it be lodged within the man's breast to be daily exercised. Let us but once grant this mysterious self endowed with this power of free volition, and the miracle becomes everywhere else credible, as required by theological or metaphysical needs. For what is a miracle but the interruption of the regularity of natural sequence by the sudden irruption and interference of a foreign and superior power ? And what is the exercise of a free will but the like arbitrary appearance and inter- ference of a foreign power in the circle of natural phenome- nal motives for the purpose of breaking the natural sequence of motive and volition ? It is not the appearance of a new motive, but of a power different in kind, a thing per se, of whose existence, moreover, we have no evidence. Indeed, if we admit this miracle to be performed within ourselves and by ourselves, we are only obstinate as well as illogical in affirming its impossibility in other cases where it seems more urgently called for. But science cannot without self- 74 Does God Ansiver Prayer? destruction allow either the miracle in general or the special one of creation ex nihilo ; and least of all can she allow that both take place within the theatre of man's breast in the production of something from nothing, as in the sup- posed exercise of a free uncaused will. Science explains the facts and phenomena of nature from second causes, which are invariabl}^, as Mill tells us, phenomenal causes. To do so is the business of science. She is not concerned either with ontologic or with first causes ; but the existence of a free will, or ego, is either an ontologic cause, with which science is not concerned, or it is a phenomenal one for whose existence she finds no evidence, while it would contradict her two highest generalizations — the law of universal causa- tion, and the law of the conservation of energy. The doctrine of a free will would enthrone man himself as deity, would make the ego a true creator — a result consistent possibly with most forms of German transcendental philosophy, but not with the conclusions of psychology and of modern science generally."* ^ 9. This quotation is significant. Free-will, it appears, must be denied, because forsooth it would aftbrd an ana- logue for creation and for miracle ! It is not often that the odium anti-tlieologicum manifests itself so purely. We have already seen that '' conservation of energy " and " the reign of law " can present no real obstacle to the free action of the creatures ; and it is really too much to ask us to sur- render the assurances of self-consciousness that physical science may be enthroned, and miracle proclaimed impos- sible. If this is the present tendency of the scientific spirit, then it must be denounced and resisted as the foe of truth and freedom. t We abide by the testimony of self- * •' Creed of Science," pp. 134-6. t Appendix. Note D. Sins against the Laws of N attune. 75 consciousness ; we recognize the freedom of the will ; and we shall let the consequences take care of themselves. § 10. But as for the consequences of man's free-will, let us observe here, in the first place, that it is an undoubted fact that man has suffered through his self-will. The world is not what it might have been, in consequence of man's free-will. Scientific men will at least allow that man has been sinning against the lav/s of nature for many mil- lenniums. They were, for the most part, sins of ignorance ; but their consequences have been '' mourning, and lamen- tation, and woe." And the one remedy is, they will tell us, scientific acquaintance with the laws of nature. In other words, man has got to bring his will round to obedi- ence to nature's laws. His free-will, leading him into outlawry, has resulted in pain and privation of many kinds, and wisdom directs him to obedience as his present re- demption. His free acceptance of the light of nature conducts him to comfort and success. He finds, therefore, that law enlarges his liberty and his enjoyments if he freely obeys it. Hence the free man enters the domain of law, and b}^ obedience he enlarges his dominion. So that law becomes not his condemnation as a slave, but his charter as a free man. § II. What is civilization but the history of man enlarg- ing his powers and his liberty by obedience to law ? He brings himself by a free act round to nature's way of thinking, so to speak, and finds himself conducted to an empire beyond the bounds of all his anticipations. It is law which enlarges liberty. Of course there has been a rushing into extremes. Man has gone in for "unlimited libert}'-," as in the times of the French Revolution, and demonstrated that '' there is nothing in the idea of mere liberty to create the feeling of reverence ; the desire of 76 Does God Answer Prayer? unlimited liberty is an essentially selfish feeling, and has no regard for any Power from above that might impose silence on each windy self-proclaimer." * But sooner or later it is seen that only by accepting of ** liberty within the bounds of law " can its privileges be enjoyed. § 12. If the laws of nature, then, constitute the charter of man's liberty in the physical world, it will be found still farther that there is another law which is his charter of liberty in the moral world. It is expressed by one word, and that is Love. The Bible, as we understand it, has this purpose in view, to inculcate love — love to God and love to man. Hence it is called '' the perfect law of liberty," indi- cating that the other laws already noticed do not embrace man's whole being as the law of love does. Now it is when we bring ourselves under this supreme law that we enter upon the highest freedom. t As Professor Bowne has put it: "The highest form of human freedom is not to be found in our subordinate acts whereb}^ we change or resist external nature, and least of all is it to be found in acting against reason and right. The highest act of the free soul is the acceptance of our true nature, or the choice of right reason to be the law of our entire being." t This is the acceptance of the law of love as expounded for us in God's Word.§ '' Baeon observed that it is by obeying the laws of nature that we become masters of nature. Every step in civiHzation reveals some new law claiming our submis- sion, and by submitting to which we enlarge our empire. Every act is in the first instance a j^oke that we take upon * Blackie's "Natural History of Atheism," p. 52. t Cf. " La Philosophie de la Liberie, " par Charles Secrelan, tome i., p. 489, etc. X "Studies in Theism,"' p. 354. § Cf. Vatke's "Die Menschliche Freiheit," ss. 194—206. Liberty enlarged through Obedience. yj ourselves, a discipline of our docility, which becomes the secret of future power. In the social state, submission to order and authority is submission to justice; and this limitation of brute emotions and rude instincts makes the power and the real freedom of the civilized man greater than that of the savage. In every sphere, man, a king by birthright, strives to reign ; and he succeeds so far as he humbles himself to accept the subordinate and delegated royalty which has been traced out for him ; but the process is then only adequate and complete in principle when it is applied to the very central spring of life, when the sinner at the feet of Jesus desires to have no will but His, and then rises up his own master and heir of all things. Royally minded, royally clad, royally guarded, royally victorious, he shall one day be royally lodged, and shall receive a crown, though he will not allow it to rest upon his own brow." " § 13. Man's power is recognised in the manipulation of the laws of nature by those who deny his free-will. The}^ think that because free-will does not devote itself to impossibilities, and become a conjuror, and work wonders to the confusion of all science, therefore it cannot be said to exist.t But this is clearly a confusion of thought. Man has carried his self-will far enough in all conscience, as the sorrowful history of humanity attests. But wisdom comes, and he sees the propriety of keeping his free-will within due bounds ; he concerns himself with the possible ; he studies his environment, gets acquainted with nature's laws, and within ''the reign of law" realises his liberty. * Monsell's " Religion of Redemption," pp. 294 — 5. t Cf. Fischer's " Die Freiheit des Menschlichen Willens," ss. 144- 167 ; Graham's '■ Creed of Science, p. 233. 78 Does God Answer- Praye^^ ? His wisdom is seen in exercising his freedom within definite bounds. § 14. A law of liberty has, consequently, been granted by the great Ruler of all to all His creatures. It is a mere projection of an abstract idea into a domain where it has no legitimate place to suppose that law tyrannises over them. They are free under the so-called reign of law. Moreover, in the case of man, not only is he free like the rest of the animated creation, but he is also endowed with a will-power which asserts itself amid the reign of law, either to secure misfortune or to facilitate progress. But this endowment of freedom becomes a blessing to us only when we conform ourselves to law, the laws of nature, and, above and beyond these, the law of love. In love man is free as air — then, and only then, has he entered into perfect liberty. It has been absolutely needful to assert this fact of liberty under law, since the whole question with which we have to deal has suffered from the confusion introduced by the abstraction '' reign of law." If we are not watchful, we shall be led to regard ourselves as mental slaves, because our minds manifest themselves according to certain ''laws of thought." It is easy confusing a question ; it must be our aim to emancipate ourselves from the confusion by realizing that in the midst of these laws ordained of God we are not only free, but, by wise manipulation of them, enlarging our hberty every day. CHAPTER VI. 2 HE LA W OF PRA YER. CHAPTER VI. THE LA W OF PR A YER. § I. \"\ TE have now reached that stage in our discus - V V sion when we can, without prejudice to our consciousness of freedom under the reign of law, look around us and discern in the very constitution of nature a law of Prayer. Nature might have been constructed on a prayerless principle ; as a matter of fact, it has been constructed on the prayerful principle. Without prayer, nature as at present constituted would go to pieces. This is what we proceed to point out in the present chapter. § 2. But first let us start with a clear conception of what prayer is. It may be defined as tJie expression of a sense of want, whetlier on one's oivn behalf or on behalf of others, in hope of that ivant being supplied. It may not take an articulate form at all. Animals, for instance, utter their cries, and response comes to these cries, and all in the order of nature. Take the cry of young animals for food ; that cry is the expression of want, that cry is heard by the parent bird or beast as the case may be, it is responded to, the cry has been answered ; in the very order of nature prayer lias proved efficacious. Animated nature is thus seen to be constructed upon the prayer plan. Animals express their wants in cries, and provision is made in some way for an answer to these cries. It is not necessary to suppose 6 82 Does God Ansiuer Prayer ? that they are conscious of their prayerfulness. All they are conscious of is their want^ but as we contemplate their instinctive appeals for succour we recognise them as prayers addressed for help to some power that can save. Hence we find the Hebrew poet interpreting nature truly when he represents the young lions as roaring after their prey and seeking their meat from God (Psalm civ. 21). He did not intend to convey the notion that there is any conscious appeal upon the young lions' part to the Most High, but he recognizes in their roar a real prayer, which receives in the order of nature its answer. And it may be w^ell to add here that the prayer of the beasts of pre}'', though answered often, is not infallibly efficacious. David says in the thirty-fourth psalm : '^ The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger ; but they that seek the Lord shall not want any good thing" (v. 10). The idea manifestly is that the Lord may disappoint the young lions as they roar for prey, but He will not disappoint His own people. The animal world, therefore, is full of Prayer. In fact, the relations of the sexes, of the young to their parents, of animals generally to their food, include appeals to one another and answers to those appeals ; in a word, efficacious prayer is seen to be a law of nature in the relations of the beasts.* § 3. But farther, we see a great field of prayer in the relations of the animals to man. Bacon speaks somewhere about man being ''the god of the dog." But we may extend the notion to all the animals man has domesticated. The universal statement of the Apostle James is nearly realized : " For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been * Cf. Professor Wallace's admirable lecture, " Prayer in Relation to Natural Law," to which we are much indebted. Efficacious Prayer among the Beasts. '^^ tamed of mankind" (iii. 7). And in this dominion which man has obtained over the lower animals there is a marvellous field for prayer. In how many forms do the poor creatures appeal to us ? They appeal in their hunger for food; in their thirst for drink ; in their pain for relief; in their loneliness for sympathy and society. And the good-hearted answer their appeals ; we bring them food ; we carry them water, or lead them to the river's brink ; we do our best to heal their wounds or their diseases ; and we give them such sympathy and such society as our engage- ments allow ; — in a word, we answer their prayers, and make them efficacious, all in perfect consistency with the order of nature.* § 4. And here it may be well to point out the character of the procedure. We have already seen that our know- ledge of the beasts is from their analogy to ourselves. But they have not the faculty of speech which we possess. Their appeals are the appeals of the dumb, a system of signs, which our intelligence enables us to interpret. We guess at their meaning, we test our guess by our answer, and we have the great satisfaction often of seeing our guess verified, and the animal relieved. We are able by our intellectual * The following quotation from Principal Dawson will confirm the view given in the text. He says : " A naturalist should be the last man in the world to object to the efficacy of prayer, since prayer is itself one of the most potent of natural forces. The cry of the young raven brings its food from afar, without any exertion on its part, for that cry has power to move the emotions and the muscles of the parent-bird, and to overcome her own selfish appetite. The bleat of the lamb not only brings its dam to its side, but causes the secretion of milk in her udder. The cry of distress nerves men to all exertions, and to brave all dangers, and so struggle against all or any of the laws of nature that may be causing suffering or death. Nor in the case of prayer are the objects obtained at all mechanically commensurate with the activities set in / 84 Does God Answer Prayer ? powers to interpret the appeal of creatures below us in the scale of existence, and to answer them. And on the other hand, we are enabled to reveal to them our will or our desires, as the case may be, and to secure or compel their submission. So that in the order of nature we find ourselves enabled to hear and answer prayers from below us, and to publish our commands and our will in the inferior realm, so as to secure a very large measure of obedience. We wish to point out the marvellous interest which this has when looked at analogically. It carries not only the philosophy of prayer within its breast, but also the analogue of revelation. § 5. But now we must rise in the scale of existence to contemplate prayer as it exists among men. Let us begin at the beginning, and consider the cry of hungry children for bread. It was here Jesus began in His analogical argument about prayer. " And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given unto you ; seek, and ye shall find ; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. ... If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone ? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent ? or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion ? If ye motion. We have all seen how the prayer of a few captives, wrongfully held in durance by some barbarous potentate, may move mighty nations and cause them to pour out millions of their treasure, to send men and materials of war over land and sea, to sacrifice hundreds of lives, in order that a just and proper prayer may be answered. In such a case we see how the higher law overrides the lower, and may cause even frightful suffering and loss of life, in order that a mere spiritual end may be gained. Are we to suppose, then, that the only Being in the universe who cannot answer prayer is that One who alone has all power at His command ? The weak theology which professes to believe that prayer has merely a subjective benefit is infinitely less scientific than the action of the child who confidently appeals to a Father in heaven." Otir Lord's Analogical Aigtmtent. 85 then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him ?" (Luke xi. 9-13.) In Matthew the last verse is given in a more general form : " How much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask Him?" (Matt. vii. 11.) It i surely significant that Jesus Christ, whose appreciation of nature was profound, should thus give us an analogical argument in favour of praj^er to the unseen Father from the prayers of hungry children to their human parents. The children, just like the young of the lower animals, cry when hungry to their parents for bread ; the parents hear their cry, and, if worthy of the name, they do their best to give them the good things they need ; as a rule, even though times are hard, the parents '' know how to give " the good things to their little ones. The reign of law m2iy exist and the struggle for existence be severe, but the parents can so insert themselves into the order of nature as to get for their little ones what they need. The prayer of the famishing children proves efficacious. § 6. Let us pass upwards for further illustration. A child or grown person is sick. The suffering, we shall suppose, is severe. The patient cannot diagnose his own case. He can tell something of his symptoms ; he can point to the seat of pain, and give an idea to others of what is wrong ; but he does not know his disease, he has not the knowledge to discern its character. A doctor comes, and an appeal is made to the doctor for relief. Perhaps the appeal is inarticulate — it may be but a groan, or a tear, or a sigh ; but it is a sufficient prayer, and the doctor does his best to relieve the sufferer. The attention given by the doctor to the case is, so far, an answer to the patient's pra3^er. Thus far has the prayer been efficacious. But now, in the order 86 Does God Ansiver Prayer ? of nature, another prayer comes in. The doctor does not profess to do cures by any inherent personal power ; he uses means, and these means are appeals to a curative power in nature. There can be no doubt of the existence of a vis medicatrix natiirce, and, whether the doctor always realizes the meaning of his act or no, he does really adopt a '^ scien- tific method of appeal," as it has been called, which in relation to our present inquiry is a prayer for the cure of his patient. And in multitudes of cases the appeal of the physician to nature's healing power is efficacious ; the cure comes, the pain departs, the doctor's prayer and the patient's previous prayer have been efficacious.* § 7. But we must rise higher still. From the groans and tears of the sick we shall now pass to the social courtesies of the strong and healthy, and here do we find another vast field for efficacious prayer. What is an act of courtesy ? Is it not a prayer addressed to a companion, and eliciting a fitting response ? Suppose for a moment that these pra3'ers addressed to one another with their corresponding answers were suspended, that instead of asking for and receiving favours we eventually resolved to resort to force, then the ao"e of barbarism would at once return upon us, in which, as Wordsworth so daintily puts it in his poem on Rob Roy's Grave, ' ' The good old rule Sufficeth them, the simple plan, That they should take who have the power, And they should keep who can." It is thus evident that but for prayer as a law of society, it would go to pieces altogether. The constitution of nature * Cf. "Henry Ilolheacli : Student in Life and in Philosophy," vol. i., p. 205-6, " Propitiation " in Nature. Z^j is thus seen to include as an all-important element the exercise of efficacious prayer. § 8. Let us pursue the subject. Take man's intellectual nature. It needs food just as well as his body does. How does it get it ? — By praj^er and its answer. What are intellectual inquiries but prayers addressed to wiser men, or, as we may sa}^ to the still wiser nature, at whose feet science is proud to sit ? What are experiments but pra3^ers presented, so to speak, at nature's shrine, and receiving definite answers? What are the appliances of scientific or literary' men but appeals for help to those quarters whence they believe help can come ? The intellectual realm is crammed full of efficacious prayer just as we have found the animal realm to be. And those truths which come flashing like inspiration, the very word Professor Tyndall uses regarding them, from the infinite spaces, revealing new lines of light and truth to the mind which is fitted to take them in, — what are these, we ask, but answers to inquiring minds given in the order of nature? The truth is that prayer, real and efficacious, is the rule, and not the excep- tion, in all nature's kingdoms. § 9. And in truth an eye of genius, no matter how opposed to the conclusion which we hope in this discussion logically to reach, can hardly escape the appeals made in nature, and answered according to her laws. Thus the author of '' Natural Religion " has recently pointed out something like a " propitiation " in nature. " Science," he says, '* also has its ' procuratio prodigiorum.' It does not believe that nature is benevolent ; and yet it has all the confidence of Mohammedans or Crusaders. This is because it believes that it understands the laws of nature, and that it knows how to deal so that nature shall favour its opera- tions. Not by the Sibylline books, but by experiment; SS Does God Answer Prayer ? not by supplications, but by scientific precautions and operations, it discovers and propitiates the mind of its deity." * It thus appears that the world of mind as well as the world of organised matter is constructed upon the prayer principle. The want of the individual, whether physical or mental, is expressed in some form or another ; and so in the order of nature the answer comes. Prayer has proved efficacious. § ID. We have hitherto spoken only of personal wants and personal petitions. We have now to turn to the other aspect of prayer, where it is truly disinterested — we mean intercessory prayer ) and here again our analogies crowd in upon us. Among the lower animals we may find interces- sory prayer in exercise. Have not parent birds and beasts been observed seeking and imploring food not for them- selves, but to give to their young ? There is a whole world of disinterestedness revealed just here in the parental relations of the lower animals. But we had better proceed at once to the illustrations among men, and we cannot do better than take the illustration our Lord affords us. " Which of you," said He, '' shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him. Friend, lend me three loaves ; for a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him ? And he from within shall answer and say. Trouble me not ; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed ; I cannot rise and give thee. I say unto you. Though he will not rise and give him because he is his friend, ^^et because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth " (Luke xi. 5-8). Here, then, is a case of interces- sory pra3''er as it obtains among men. This kindl}'^, hos- pitable man, who goes out into the darkness to beg, is not * Pages;. Prayer, Articulate and Inartictdate. 89 hungry himself; he has had his supper; but the visit of the hungry guest has come upon him with surprise. It is for another he pleads, and this is what makes his impor- tunity so efficacious. The friend within recognizes that it is not for himself but for another he seeks the favour, and so surrenders it. Now the social and public life of men is full of such cases of intercessory prayer. What are testi- monials, letters of introduction, personal influence, but cases of intercessory prayer followed often by success, and so far efficacious ; and all, let us remember, according to the order of nature. § II. It thus appears "that the sj^stem of nature when fairly analysed includes prayer. We have prayer inarticu- late, the cry of beasts and birds, the cry of infants, the tears and groans of the sick and the afflicted, the doctor's medicine, the scientific man's experiments — these are all prayers of the inarticulate sort appealing for physical or mental help, and as a rule receiving what is sought. We have prayer articulate — the petitions of children, the peti- tions of courtesy, the petitions of public life ; and answers more or less satisfactory are forthcoming according to the order of nature. Lastly, we have intercessory prayers among animals and among men, disinterestedness pure and simple entering into the field and achieving success. We are warranted, therefore, in saying that efficacious prayer is a law of nature. We have admitted that, like other laws, it may be limited by circumstances so as to have proper exceptions. If every cry were heard and answered without question, there would be no room for wisdom and judgment in the world. Human judgment may wisely decide to refuse some petitions, as being baneful to the petitioners. Is every sot to get the drink he calls for ? Is a child to get the light or the loaded firearm he would like 90 . Does God Answer Prayei' ? to play with ? Is the dog to be overfed because he cries for more than we know will be good for him ?^Assuredly not. Nature assigns limits to the efficacy of prayer. But they are mainly in the physical domain. In the intellectual, the moral, and, as we shall presently see, in the spiritual, the limitations are practically so distant that we may enjoy without apprehension an unending development. The answers to our inquiries in matters intellectual, moral, and spiritual are not so niggardly as some suppose, but are cxiven to us with royal hand. Meanwhile we must close the present chapter with reiterating its leading idea that we have found efficacious prayer to be a law of nature. PART III. €ffica;ci0its §x^tx a priljilcp of tire |liiu]b0m CONTENTS OF PART III. CHAP. VII. GOD TO BE RECOGNIZED AND ADDRESSED AS FREE. ,, VIII. GOD TO BE RECOGNIZED AND ADDRESSED AS SOCIAL. ,, IX. GOD TO BE RECOGNIZED AND ADDRESSED AS SELF-SUFFICING. CHAPTER VIT. GOD TO BE RECOGNIZED AND ADDRESSED AS FREE. CHAPTER VII. GOD TO BE RECOGNIZED AND ADDRESSED AS EREE, § I, \T7E have in the preceding part of this work V V considered the facts of the order of nature as we find them. We have seen the abstraction, '' reign of law," yielding so far to analysis as to be regarded as not in- compatible with libert3^ We have further found on appeal to self-consciousness that we are ourselves free. And in our freedom we have found a great field for efficacious prayer without rising to the invisible realm at all. Not only so, but this region of prayer and answer as between the creatures brings us face to face with a most important fact — viz., that in the constitution of nature there is a field for Grace. Let us revert for a moment to some of our facts adduced in last chapter. We pass over the facts about prayer among the lower animals that we may attach the idea of grace more emphatically to human relations. Take the relations of children to parents. Have we not here a great exhibition o^ grace, or undeserved favour ? Is there a child able to think correctly who must not admit that to such constant care as a mother or even a father extends, he has no Just claim ? Do we not cheerfully acknowledge that we can never repay our parents for their gracious care, and is not the idea in our own parental relations, when they come to us, that by the gracious care of our own children we may in some measure repay our obligation to the preceding 96 Does God Answer Prayer ? generation ? \ The whole *' binding of the generations each to each" is through a relation o{ grace. §2. Take again the courtesies of society; what do we exactly mean by affirming that persons carry themselves with "grace " and are in their bearing " most gracious" ? Manifestly we mean that they show consideration for others to which these recipients have no real title ; in a word, the gracious treat with favour those with whom they come in contact. Again, the field of testimonials, letters of intro- duction, influence, and such like, is one vast field allotted in the order of nature to the exercise oi grace. Nay, more; those revelations which come to scientific investigators re- garding new laws and ampler generalisations are, when strictly considered, manifestations o{ grace to the recipients. No properly constituted mind, we imagine, will assert that the preliminary investigations constitute a fair price for the discovery. Rather will it be acknowledged that the grand discovery is beyond all personal desert. Hence we come to the conclusion that there is a " kingdom of grace " set up within the order of nature, and that, as a rule, we are not treated as we morally deserve. § 3. Starting, then, from this ground of fact, we proceed to the inquiry regarding the existence and nature of God. From what we have already urged in Chapter III., we are com- pelled to posit a supreme Intelligence at the back of things, the same in kind with ourselves, but inconceivably greater in degree. And now we proceed to inquire what His rela- tion is to the order of nature and the reign of law. We have found ourselves free within the realm of natural law, and we have no alternative, according to the analogy to which we are committed, but to posit a kindred freedom as belonging to God. But when we extend this idea of free- dom, as wc require to extend it, we find our conceptions of Reign of Lazu no Imposition tip on God. 97 God greatly enlarged and improved. As for the '' reign of law " in its relation to God, it is plain that it can be no external tyranny imposed upon Him. So far from being so, it is simply the mode of His own manifestation, and its per- sistence rests, as already noticed, simply upon His own faithfulness. There can be no antagonism between the laws and their Author. A quotation from Professor Bowne will put this point before us clearly. " It is sometimes urged that God cannot be free, because with infinite wisdom and goodness there can be but one outcome ; but this objection strangely fancies that freedom consists in doing the un- righteous and irrational, instead of in freely accepting and realizing what rational and ethical principles demand. Schleiermacher defined moral action to be the imposing of reason upon nature ; we regard it rather as the imposing of reason upon one's self But what is thus a fact with man must be allowed as possible with God. We view the Divine righteousness, therefore, as no constitutional necessity, but as the ceaseless ratification, by the Divine will, of those rational and ethical principles which are founded in the Divine nature. The Divine nature expresses what God essentially is. The Divine character expresses what God chooses to be."* In perfect consistency, therefore, with this clearly expressed truth, we maintain that the course of nature is no bondage imposed upon God, but simply the expression of His own will, and so far the outcome of His freedom. § 4. Besides, we are bound to notice the free use ive are enabled to make of nature's laws. Although our know- ledge of the laws of nature is small at best, and an increas- ing sense of what remains to be known is daily forced upon investigators, yet wonders have already been accomplished * "Studies in Theism," pp. 354-5. 7 98 Does God Answer Prayer ? through man's knowledge of these laws. The arts and sciences have changed the face of the world ; they have done magician's work, so to speak, among us. If man, then, we argue, with his little insight has done so much, what may we not expect from God with perfect knowledge and perfect command of the laws of nature? ''When we ascribe the attribute of intelligence to the first cause," says Mr. Romanes, ''we of necessity imply that the quality is similar in kind to our own — otherwise our ascription can possess no meaning. If, then, our finite intelligence, objectively con- sidered, is pre-eminently characterized by its combining influence over natural law, much more must the infinite intelligence be so characterized. If the mind of man is able, through the agency of mindless law, to produce such vast and varied effects, how inconceivably great and diverse must be the possible effects similarly producible by the mind of God, supposing this to operate. . . . Human intelligence, then, in its influence over law, is limited in two directions — by a deficiency in knowledge, and by a deficiency in power. In neither of these directions can we suppose any limitation to obtain in the supreme intelligence. Consequently, it becomes impossible for human intelligence to predicate the number and kinds of the special results which it is possible for the final directive influence to produce, through the purposive combination of natural law. ... If the human mind can do so much as it does in the way of directing the natural forces, how inconceivably immense must be the ability of the final directive intelligence, transcending as it does so immeasurably its mere human analogue, and de- pending as all things do upon its prime directive in- fluence."* * " Christian Prayer and General Laws," by G. J. Romanes. M.A., pp. 163-8, God s Infinite Possibilities in Nature. 99 § 5. It is plain, therefore, that, supposing the laws of nature to have been all started on their career at the first, and never to have received a single reinforcement from the pos- sibilities of the infinite nature of God, He could so command His battalions as to produce most varied and most mar- vellous results. If man, with his tiny grasp of the mag nificent system, can yet make it serve a vast variety of purposes, it is surely childish to suppose that He, who has perfect knowledge and command of the whole, cannot make it subserve His purposes ! A supreme and free intelli- gence cannot but have infinite possibilities in such a S3^st2m as nature. § 6. When, therefore, from the analogy of human freedom, we rise to the recognition of God as free, and address Him as such, we are surely warranted in believing that He can do wonders for us, even supposing Him to restrict Himself to the system of law at present in operation. If men can surprise us with their inventions, which are really their combination and adaptation of the laws of nature, much more may we believe in the possibility of the all-wise and infinite Spirit working wonders for us in response to prayer. We are not now considering the substance of the prayer at all, but simply the possibilities which, in the midst of His own reign of law, lie open to the infinite Spirit. Even granting that the age of miracles is past, granting that the Most High now restricts Himself to the existing laws of nature as His instruments, then it is as certain as any analogy can make it that He has practically unlimited powers of responding to the supplications of His people. § 7. We should, however, understate the case if we paused here. The Divine freedom must be regarded as wider than the human in this respect, that it is not restricted to the order of nature for its ideas. It has, indeed, been lOO Does God Answer Prayer? supposed that if the Most High did not exhaust His budget of ideas at the very start, He was exhibiting intellectual incapacity. This is practically the position taken up in the mechanical analogy presented in so interesting a fashion by Mr. Babbage, in his " Ninth Bridgewater Treatise." Because this thinker was able to design a calculating engine, although it was never actually made, which could turn out numbers according to one law for an immense number of times, and then suddenly change the law for one delivery, ever after- wards reverting to the previous law, so he argued analogically the Most High could have constructed the machine of the universe so as to turn out results according to a uniform plan, then suddenly change and give a few exceptions, and afterwards revert to its uniform practice, and all through mechanical prearrangement. In this way Mr. Babbage believed he could give mechanical analogues for the miracles of Revelation. That we are presenting his idea properly will appear from a quotation. He says : '' To call into existence all the variety of vegetable forms, as they become fitted to exist, by the successive adaptations of their parent earth, is undoubtedly a high exertion of creative power. When a rich vegetation has covered the globe, to create animals adapted to that clothing, which, deriving nourish- ment from its luxuriance, shall gladden the face of nature, is not only a high but a benevolent exertion of creative power. To change, from time to time, after lengthened periods, the races which exist, as altered physical circum- stances may render their abode more or less congenial to their habits, by allowing the natural extinction of some races, and by a new creation of others more fitted to supply the place previously abandoned, is still but the exercise of the same benevolent power. To cause an alteration in those physical circumstances — to add to the comforts of the Babbages Mechanical Analogy. loi newly-created animals — all these acts imply power of the same order, a perpetual and benevolent superintendence, to take advantage of altered circumstances, for the purpose of producing additional happiness. But, to have foreseen^ at the creation of matter and of mind, that a period would arrive when matter, assuming its prearranged combina- tions, would become susceptible of the support of vegetable forms; that these should in due time themselves supply the pabulum of animal existence ; that successive races of giant forms or of microscopic beings should at appointed periods necessarily rise into existence, and as inevitably yield to decay ; and that decay and death — the lot of each individual existence — should also act with equal power on the races which they constitute ; that the extinction of every race should be as certain as the death of each individual ; and the advent of new genera be as inevitable as the destruction of their predecessors ; — to have foreseen all these changes, and to have provided, by one comprehensive law, for all that should ever occur, either to the races them- selves, to the individuals of which they are composed, or to the globe which they inhabit, manifests a degree of power and of knowledge of a far higher order."* § 8. Now we do not criticise Mr. Babbage's position for the purpose of throwing any discredit upon the idea of development, or of encouraging a return to the old view of separate creations. We simply desire to point out the fact that it is a mechanical analogy with which we are dealing, and the question arises of necessity, " Is this the highest idea we can entertain of God from the light of our own nature?" And it will be seen it is not^ since it really implies that unless God exhausted His ideas at the start so as to be absolutely prevented from pubhshing a new one, * Babbage's " Ninth Bridgewater Treatise," pp. 44-6. I02 Does God Answer Prayer ? and endowed the universal machine with such self-regu- lating power as to save Himself from any further concern, He was not exhibiting the highest intellectual power. This is, in fact, the old idea of the mechanician in virtual super- annuation over again, and is not the highest type of mind. What better, it will now be asked, do we propose ? We simply propose to regard God as free, so that if His grace and benevolence demand it, He can show Himself "utterly exempt from bondage either to the fixed course of nature or to the past course of history. He is not obliged to keep within the groove of natural law, or to conform to ancient precedent. His power was not exhausted in the first creation, nor His invention in the means by which in former times He accomplished His ends. There is no limit to His power, no limit to His capacity for new ideas. ' He fainteth not, neither is weary, and there is no searching of His understanding.' Surely a most worthy conception of God, superior far to that cherished either by philosophic naturalism or by theological conservatism, one of which denies to God the power of doing absolutely new things, and the other, while ascribing to God miraculous power, virtually denies to Him the power of doing new things in new ways, and makes Him the slave of old modes of action, obliged to repeat Himself, and debarred by venerable custom from every form of activity that wears the aspect of innovation." * § 9. As this point is vital, we will give another quotation which will still farther make our conception of God clear, as the actively free Being whom the analogy of human nature suggests. Tucker, in his '' Light of Nature Pursued," says : " An inactive Deity, doing nothing for many ages past besides contemplating the play of His works, seems repugnant to * Dr. A. B. Bruce 's "Chief End of Revelation," p. 180. God's Pozuer not Unemployed, 103 our idea of perfection, as that includes omnipotence and an absolute command over the creatures, which we cannot well apprehend without an actual operation upon them to govern and direct their motions ; for power never exerted does, to our thinking, scarce deserve the name of power. And though we cannot suppose otherwise than that God is completely happy in Himself, nor wants amusements to pass His time agreeably as we do, yet neither is it incon- gruous with our notions of Him, to Whom nothing is labour or trouble, that He should not have dispatched His work once for all to solace Himself ever after in quiet and repose, but should have reserved Himself something still to do wherein He might find continual employment for His Almighty power. Nor does this supposition derogate from His infinite wisdom, because it does not represent Him as making the world imperfect out of necessity, for want of skill or abihty to frame one which should run on for ever without correcting, but by choice, because He so enlarged His plan as to take in, not only the motions of matter, and actions of sentient and intelligent creatures, but likewise His own immediate acts, which we may say were contained among the list of second causes — second not to any prior agent which might give them force or direction, but to the first determination of His will, and to the plan or order of succession He laid down from everlasting." * § 10. Are we then to consider God as so free that He can interpose at any moment with some new power, and put all our science to confusion ? We are bound b}'' the analogy to believe He can interpose at any moment He pleases ; but whether He will or no is a distinct question. The rise of science is an important factor in human progress — one which the infinite Spirit, we may be certain, docs not * "Light of Nature Pursued," Daly's Edition of 1836, vol. i., p. 526. I04 Does God Answer Prayer ? disregard. He will not put His creatures to intellectual confusion, and upon His faithfulness in nature He shows us we may rely ; but the uniformity of nature is a question of ethics, and not a question of physical necessity. Hence we are not put to confusion if asked on unimpeachable testimony to believe that God interposed in such fashion long ago for a gracious purpose, as to convince the honest- hearted witnesses that it was '^ the finger of God," while now we have no evidence of such interposition. Miracles, as interruptions, not contradictions, of the laws of nature, to enable man to break through the tyranny of the words '' law " and " nature," are not only consistent with the Divine freedom, but eminently worthy of His grace."^ But the free Spirit, on whose ''good pleasure" we in the last analysis must depend, takes His own time for the miraculous interpositions, and their occurrence is a matter for testimony. § II. When, therefore, we recognize God as Iree, and address Him as such, we contemplate Him simply as a Being of infinite resource. We believe He showed His freedom and His presence in miraculous answers to prayer in primitive times, just as we believe He shows His faith- fulness in providing natural uniformity in scientific times. In both cases He has been appealing for our confidence, and man has not been put thereby to any intellectual con- fusion. We believe in God's ability within the reign of law to work wonders, just as we believe in His ability to show * Cf. Rdbertson's " Human Race and Other Sermons," p. 128 ; al.o A. K. Wallace's " On Miracles and Modern Spiritualism," where, in his defence of spiritualism, he makes free to say, '• Few. if any, reputed miracles are at all worthy of a God " (p. 44). It is evident that the writer has given no such attention to the Biblical miracles of grace as he has to the deliverances of "mediums," and the reality, as he regards it, of "witchcraft." Unifonuity of Nahtre. 105 Himself above law should the needs of His creatures demand a gracious and personal interposition. Such a view of Divine freedom endangers no science properly so called, but is a simple call for confidence in Him whom w^e are compelled to posit as at the back of all. It simply transfers to the ethical domain what some are tempted on insufficient grounds to relegate to the mechanical.''^ * Appendix, Note E. CHAPTER VIII. GOD TO BE RECOGNIZED AND ADDRESSED AS SOCIAL. CHAPTER VIII. GOD TO BE RECOGNIZED AND ADDRESSED AS SOCIAL. § I. X^/'E have seen that it is only reasonable to re- V V cognize and to address God as free. From the '' law of liberty " which all creatures enjoy, we rise analogically to the Divine freedom, and address Him as a real sovereign amid the laws He has Himself ordained. But He might be free, and recognized as such, and yet might decline communion with us. It is needful conse- quently to inquire what other qualities we are bound to recognize in God from the analogy of our own nature, and which will assure our hearts before Him. We propose in this chapter to show that it is reasonable to regard Him as social as well as free. § 2. Once more we betake ourselves to the study of nature. Therein we recognize not only freedom, but also an element of sociality. The whole question of s^x starts up for consideration here. Passing over a few inferior organizations which reproduce their kind asexually ; passing over the exceptional and yet significant fact of partheno- genesis, we find nature at a very early period carrying on her functions through the instrumentality of two sexes, the male and the female, and pursuing this plan up through the development until we reach human nature. It is not needful for our argument that we should enter at any no Does God Answer Prayer? length into the question of '' the sexes throughout Nature We may remark, however, that both Darwin and Spencer have, it is believed, treated the question with haste and unfairness. They have both exalted the male sex and depreciated the female sex, on what are believed to be insufficient grounds. They have made '' natural selection " do duty in a quite unnecessary exaltation of the stronger sex. We mention this, not that we may digress into the question of Women's Rights, which is involved in the discussion, but that we may point out the ground of the grievance in this case. In a well- written volume published in America, the authoress asserts that the conclusions of Darwin and Spencer about the inequality of the sexes are due to their want of ivomauly experience. '^ However superior their powers," she says, *' their opportunities, their established scientific positions, yet in this field of inquiry pertaining to the normal powers and functions of woman, it is they who are at a disadvantage. Whatever else women may not venture to study and explain with authorit}^ on this topic they are more than the peers of the wisest men in Christendom. Experience must have more weight than any amount of outside observation. We are clearl^^ entitled, on this subject, to a respectful hearing." * This accomplished lady goes on consequently to contend for the "equivalence of the sexes." Tracing the characteristics of the sexes up through the series of animals, she shov/s that there is a marked system of compensations, so that a general equivalence of the sexes may be recognized all through. § 3. But our argument simply requires that the meaning of the arrangement should be made out, and there can be * " The Sexes throughout Nature," by Antoinette Brown Blackvvell, pp. 6-7 ; cf. also p. 163. Companionship of Equals. 1 1 1 little doubt that the authoress is right when she says that the origin of sex is division of function (p. 46). And it is interesting to trace the relation of the sexes, the relative size of parents, the way the males and females treat their offspring and treat each other, the absence or presence of parental love, and such like, in all which facts nature was working on, so to speak, to the higher relation between the sexes which human nature illustrates. One thing is certain, moreover, from the study of the sexes in nature, that they are intended to exhibit an element of sociality. All below us goes to illustrate the fact that beings are meant for companionship and not for loneliness. § 4. And when we take up human nature, we find that there are two distinct experiences reigning throughout it,— the experience of man, and the experience of woman. A man cannot appreciate a woman's experience further than she enables him to do by her testimony. It is solely as a matter of testimony, and therefore of revelation, that he knows what she is. She, on the other hand, knows him only so far as he reveals himself. But both feel assured that they are complements of each other, and that satis- faction can only be reached through association with each other. This satisfaction, it may be shown, will be in pro- portion as man realises in woman his intended equal. To quote again from Mrs. Blackwell : " How the few really great men of the world reach out to shake hands with each other, across an ocean or a continent, more rejoiced at a word from one of these, an equal, than with endless plaudits from millions of inferiors ! The appreciation and companionship of one's equals is everywhere the social element of highest value. Add to this the responsive, quickening influences, which react with special enthusiasm between the sexes, and you have my highest ideal of the sustaining 1 1 2 Does God Answer Prayer ? and thoroughly ennobling eifects which arise from human sympathy. But man, for ever bowing his royal head, craning his moral neck, and dropping his eyes from their heavenward outlook down to woman, is not an edifying social arrangement, nor can it be a pleasant means of grace to either party." * § 5. Man is a social being, therefore, and the sexes are the first emphatic testimony throughout all nature to the social element which obtains self-consciousness within us. How essential society is to even our physical well-being may be seen from our experience at meals. A single fact will illustrate this. "A lady once told me," says the authoress just quoted, " she found it extremely difficult to take her meals alone habitually, and yet continue in good health." Her explanation was this: ''By herself she was at a loss how to graduate the amount of food which it was best to take. Appetite was often an uncertain guide. But if she could observe the amount taken by half-a-dozen others about her, she was able to strike a much more satisfactory average for herself." f But if our physical well-being demands society, much more will it be found that our intellectual and moral well-being demands it. When thought and action are fairly analysed, it will be found that they can exist only in relation to beings beyond ourselves. Absolute solitude would be the death of think- ing as well as of moral power within us. § 6. Let us look first at our intellectual dependence. We find, as a matter of experience, that '' there must be reception from some quarter before thought can begin ; and then the function of thought is to work over the raw material." % Or to put it in the still more striking phrase- * lbid.^\>. 180. t Jhid.^ pp. 224-5. \ Bowne's "Studies in Theism," p. 63, Intellectual Sociality. 1 1 3 ology of Fischer, "We are not the fathers, we are only the mothers of our thoughts." * Of course, as a materiahst, he traces the fatherhood of thought to a purely physical source; but all we wish to emphasize is that thought becomes possible only through our association with some- thing beyond us. Our '' intellectual sociality " will appear still more plainly from the following quotation from the late Professor Grote : " That each one of us is a social being means a great deal more than that he is an individual of the genus man, living with other individuals of the same genus, talking with them, and pursuing common purposes with them. He is social to the bottom of his mind ; and each one of his faculties is different from that which it would be if it was not part of his nature to associate himself He thinks socially, and cannot think otherwise ; and so far as, by a solitude inappropriate to his nature, he is thrown out of actual companionship, he is like a man deprived of his legs, or anything which ought to be his ; there is feehng of want, painful eftbrt, and more or less supply of what is wanted from some other source in the S3^stem." t Solitude, if absolute, is no strength to any human being ; solitude is useful only as a help to com- munion with One higher and better than ourselves. Even when the mind refuses, as it may, to rise into the recog- nition of God, solitude is only serviceable when peopled by the thoughts of others, — coming through nature, or books, or memory. Intellectually, we cannot help being social. t § 7. It may easily be shown again that we are morally * "Die Freiheit ties Menschlichen Willens," s. lo. t Cf. Grote's "Treatise on the Moral Ideals," p. 62. % Cf. Professor Wallace's " Human Nature a Witness to the Divine Trinity," in the British and Foreign Evangelical Reviei.v for January 1883. 8 114 Does God Answer Prayer? just as dependent as we are intellectually. Were we not in relation to other beings, our moral powers would fail for lack of exercise. To quote once more from Professor Grote : " We should be as badly off without a work to do as with- out a world to live in. And we may fairly consider, that when in virtue of our nature to which it bears a relation, we conceive our as yet unperformed but ideal work, there is as much reason, though it is of a different kind, for this conception, as there is for our conception, in virtue of the same nature, of the world in which we are."* It may also be shown that our action contracts moral value only so far as it contemplates the benefit of other beings. '' We might, conceivably," says this author further on, '' devote all our time and all our power to the promoting our own happiness and good ; in this point of view, whatever is not devoted to it (being applied to our neighbours' happiness) is so much taken from it; i.e.., is self-sacrifice. But it is exactly this action, — the action which is, in a small or a great degree, a withdrawing of our power from effort after our own happiness to effort after doing ' what we should,' — which, as we have seen, has 'aretaic' value, or merit. "f Morally, therefore, as well as intellectually, man is a social being. The element of sociality cannot be ignored. § 8. If, then, we are led by the analogy of our nature to attribute freedom to God, we are as clearly led to attribute sociality to Him. His social qualities regulate His free action. His delights will be found to be with the sons of men. Wc have already referred to the intelligibility of nature. It is a feast of reason, as scientific mcji before investigation believe, and which they verify through it. And as the in- vestigation rises from the series of facts to the recognition of * '* Treatise on the Moral Ideals," pp. 48-9. t Ibid., p. 73. Religiotts Use of Nahtre. 1 1 5 law, he acknowledges an experience coming from beyond him- self and a real inspiration. "It is," says Professor Tyndall in his " Fragments of Science," '' by a kind of inspiration that we rise from the wise and sedulous contemplation of facts to the principles on which they depend." And again, " This passage from facts to principles is called induction, which, in its highest form, is inspiration." We take these inspirations, then, which come through nature as proofs positive of the sociality of God. They are the approaches of the infinite Mind above us to the minds of His intelligent creatures below, and so far speak of His desire for communion. When He spread this feast of reason, before His intelligent creation, it was not surely that it should shut Him out from their thoughts, but rather that it should be the medium of communion. We feel warranted, consequent!}^, in regarding the intelligibility of nature as a token of the desire of a social Being like ourselves to have fellow^ship with us. Hence the religions use of nature as we find it in the Hebrew poets is in strict accordance with the order which obtains throughout it. Thus when one of the Hebrew poets speaks of the thoughts of God as being precious and manifold, — ''How precious also are Thy thoughts unto me, O God, how great is the sum of them. If I should count them they are more in number than the sand," — he is simply recognizing that sociality of God which is indicated by the intelligible character of nature. And all through the Psalms we see nature constituting a medium of communion between the human soul and God. § 9. If this social element comes out in nature, much more may we recognize it in human nature. If God speaks through an intelligible universe to the intelligent creatures of His hand, much more does He speak to us through man. It has been very properly observed that the progress of our ii6 Does God A7isiuer Pi^ayer? race has been mainly through great men raised up from time to time. Had it not been for these, natural selection would admittedly have been powerless in promoting the progress of the race. * And this impulse to the race, be it observed, was administered not in a physical way by heredity, but in a spiritual way by thought and action. What, then, is the confession of the really great ? Dr. Mozley had a theory which the confession of the really great sustains, that ^'really great men are less guided by what is called free-will than common minds — they seem rather to follow an impulse beyond themselves. "t In other words, they act under a species of inspiration. They have some message to com- municate to men, which the great Spirit beyond them prompts, and in the reception of which the advancement of the race is promoted. In his '' Horae Subsecivae " the late Dr. John Brown has called these men ''' solar," and says: '' When we meet a solar man we feel that it is the inspira- tion of the Almighty which has given to that man under- standing. And it would be well if the world made more of this; that their great men are manifesters of God, 'revealers' of His will, vessels of His omnipotence, and among the very chiefest of His ways and works." And another writer following up Dr. Brown's thought has said : '' All true ' solar ' men do thus trace up their gifts to this Divine source. In philosophy, we find a Socrates declaring that his wisdom is not his own, but a breath of the divinity within him. In science, we see a Pythagoras, flushed with the joy of geometrical discovery, running to sacrifice a heca- tomb of grateful adoration to the Inspirer of this discovery. In morals, we have a Sophocles affirming that in the highest heaven the Divine laws have their birth, and not the race * Cf. Graham's *' Creed of Science," pp. 68-74. t Cf. Mozley's "Essays, Historical and Theological," vol.i., p. xxviii. Inspiration of the really Great. 1 1 7 of mortals did beget them, but the power of God. In music, we have a Haydn, when admired for his genius, Hfting up his hands to Heaven, and exclaiming, ' Not mine ! Not mine ! From God alone it comes ! ' In painting, we have a Blake declaring, ' He who does not imagine in a stronger and better light than his perishing mortal eye can see, does not imagine at all.' In poetry, we have a Wordsworth referring to ' the vision and the faculty divine,' ' the fountain- light of all our seeing.' And in religion, we have the pro- phets of old proclaiming, ' The word of the Lord came to me,' ' The Spirit of the Lord is upon me ' ; and Jesus Himself declaring, of all that He taught and did, 'My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent Me,' ' The words that I speak to you I speak not of m3^self, but the Father who dwelleth in Me, He does all my works.' " * Through really great men, therefore, we recognize thoughts from beyond coming to the race. Every really great man is a sign to the understanding spirit of the sociality of God. God speaks to us through the great men He raises up and inspires. § 10. We are bound to add to all this the fact that there is an inveterate tendency within us to forget the meaning oi the facts before us because of their regularity of sequence, and so to miss the revelation through admiration of its mere rhythm and order ; hence the Infinite Spirit may be speak- ing by nature and by great men, while our dull ears, through the buzz of '^ wisdom and of prudence," may ignore the message altogether. God is social, and He seeks fellowship with His creatures. We are wise when we recognize this, and address Him as waiting to hear us and to be gracious. The entire constitution of nature and of man bespeaks a social God. * Griffiths' *' Studies of the Divine Master," pp. ix.-x. CHAPTER IX. GOD TO BE RECOGNIZED AND ADDRESSED AS SELF-SUFFICING. CHAPTER IX. GOD TO BE RECOGNIZED AND ADDRESSED AS SELF-SUEEICEYG. § I. \ 7J 7'E cannot pause with our ascription of freedom V V and of sociality to God. We are compelled to go farther and ascribe self-sufficiency to Him ; and it will be evident in the course of the discussion that it is here the gracious character of the Divine dealings has its seat. If God be social, as we have seen, if there must be an element of sociality in the Divine nature corresponding to sociality in human nature, then we are shut up to the alternative of supposing that communion with the creatures was a necessity to Him, in order to some measure of personal satisfaction, or that He had within His own nature the elements needful for communion, and consequently that His " advances " to the creature are entirely of grace. We proceed to show that the former is untenable, and that the latter alone satisfies the necessities of thought. § 2. That it is absolutely needful for us to enter this region of highest speculative thought will appear from a few references to current speculations. We shall start with Dr. Martineau. He tries to save his *' lonely God " b}^ positing '^ the coeval existence of matter, as the condition and medium of the Divine agency and manifestation. . . . Stupendous as the chronometry is which the geologist places 122 Does God Answer Prayer? at our command, its utmost stretch into the past brings us apparently no nearer to a lonely God ; nature is still there with no signs of recenc}'-, but still in the midst of changes which have an immeasurable retrospect. May we not, then, fairly say that the burden of proof remains with those who affirm the absolute origination of matter at a certain or uncertain date ? Failing the proof, we are left with the Divine cause and the material condition of all nature in eternal co-presence and relation, as supreme subject and rudimentary object."* Miss Cobbe again gives us a lonely God in the ver}^ title of her little book on pra3^er, *' Alone to the Alone," apparently unconscious of the fact that a lonely Deity would repel rather than attract us. Her pertinent distinction between soliloquy and dialogue or address (p. 21) has a Divine as well as human application, which she seems not to have suspected, and bears upon the essential nature of God.t But other thinkers, not pro- fessedly Unitarian in their beliefs, have allowed themselves to slip into a practical adoption of their '' lonely God," as if it were the only possible idea. The tendency of Hegelianism, if its disciples be not upon their guard, is towards the notion that the universe consists of relations ; that these relations are unalterable ; and, therefore, it was necessary for the Infinite to have the finite in some shape or form always in relation to it. That we are not mis- stating the case will appear from the following quotation from Principal Caird : " The Infinite of religion cannot be a mere self-identical Being, but one which contains, in its very nature, organic relation to the finite ; or, rather, it is that organic whole which is the unity of the Infinite and finite. In other words, an Infinite which docs not extinguish * Martineau's ** Es?;ays," vol. i.. pp. 161 -2, t Appendix. Note F. The Infinite according to Dr. Caird, 123 the finite as its base, contradictory or negative, must contain in itself the determination of the finite. If rehgion means that only in union with God can any spiritual nature fulfil or realise itself, it follows that there must be something in the nature of God on which the religious relation is based. A necessary relation cannot be one in which there is necessity only on the one side and mere arbitrary will on the other. But this would be implied in conceiving of God as a mere abstract omnipotence, and of the creation of the world as simply the act of His * mere will and pleasure.' According to this conception, as there is no reason in God why finite spiritual beings should exist rather than not exist, there can be nothing in man which is unfulfilled and unsatisfied save in union with God. To be spiritually united to God is to find in God the end and reason of my being, and to say this is equivalent to saying that the existence of a finite world, or of finite spiritual beings, cannot be ascribed to a mere arbitrary creative will, but springs out of something in the very nature of God ; or that the idea of God contains in itself, as a necessar}^ element of it, the existence of finite spirits. Now, that the true idea of the Infinite does contain in it the idea of the finite, or, in less formal terms, that the nature of God would be imperfect if it did not contain in it relation to a finite world, may be shown in various ways. The simplest way in which we can make this thought clear to ourselves is by considering that, conceived as a mere abstract, self- identical Infinite, God would lack that which is one of the most essential elements of a spiritual nature — the element of love. Without life in the life of others a spiritual being would not be truly spirit. To go forth out of self, to have all the hidden wealth of thought and feeling, of which I am capable, called forth in relations to other and kindred 124 Does God Anszuer Prayer? beings, and to receive back again that wealth redoubled in reciprocated knowledge and affection — this is to live a spiritual life; not to do this is to take from our lives all that makes them spiritual. But all this we leave out of our idea of God if we conceive of Him as a self-identical Infinite, complete and self-contained in His own being. " * Now it will appear to every impartial thinker that Principal Caird's God is just as lonely as Dr. Martineau's, and that the onl}'' difference between the two solutions is that Dr. Caird proposes the necessary creation of finite intelligences as the objective to the Divine mind, with which He solaced Himself in His solitude, while Dr. Martineau thinks He had a '' rudimentary object " in coeval matter. But the Infinite is in sad loneliness whichever of these ideas we adopt. § 3. Before proceeding to show this, however, let us take another quotation. Professor Grote says : '' Whether such a thing as morality would be conceivable, if we were any of us the solitary sentient being in creation, is a speculation on which we can hardly enter. We can hardly affirm the contrary, for we suppose an existence of the Deity, good and moral, previous to everything ; but I conclude that we should not consider the affixing moral epithets to Him in such a position to have any meaning, unless we suppose in Him the power of terminating the solitude, and, corre- spondingly, of imagining beings in regard of whom His moral attributes might be exercised." f We find this writer consequently attributing to God an " egence," or want, of the most imperious kind, for other sentient and moral beings on whom the wealth of His love may be lavished. % * Principal Caird's " Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion," pp. 250-2. I " Treatise on the Moral Ideals," p. 37. \ Ibid., p. 31. Felloiuship luith the Finite. 125 § 4. Is it necessary to posit any such lonely Being as this, which professed Unitarians, and others repudiating their creed, really give us ? The attempt made by sup- posing creation a necessity, and so the soliloquy of pre- arrangement the sole society of God, before there was anything made that' was made, proves fallacious. The thought of finite beings to be evolved in the course of long ages would only make the sense of solitude the more intense ; and when the real objective came before God, it would prove utterly inadequate. We have already seen that society to be satisfying must be between equals. The fellowship between the sexes can never be the satisfying sentiment it ought to be until the ''equivalence of the sexes " be recognized. Hence we can see from our own experience that no anioiuit of fellowship with the finite could satisfy the social nature of the Infinite. The whole notion, therefore, of the needs of the Infinite nature being satisfied through a creation, thus necessary to His own comfort, must be given up. It makes creation a simple act of self- satisfaction on the part of God, and deprives it of all its moral grandeur. If we are brought to this, that creation is necessary to provide a lonely God with society, then the dependence of the Deity on His creatures is established, and the stability of the whole moral system imperilled. § 5. It is easy to see that trust in God must be most seriously modified upon any such assumption. If I am as needful to God as God is to me, if He would be lonely without me, as I am without Him, then we are simply fellows in misfortune, clinging frantically to one another in a universe which threatens us with separation and solitude. But I need something more substantial to trust in than such a Being would be. Unless the Infinite be self-sufficing, He is not the adamantine Rock we need amid the vicissitudes 126 Does God Anszuer Prayer 9 and separations we experience. An Infinite depending for His satisfaction upon tiie finite is no proper object on whom to rely. § 6. Hence it is that we are driven by the analogy, to which we are necessarily committed, to attribute to the Divine Being such self-containedness and such relations within Himself as render Him self-sufficing and independent. We turn consequently from the solitary Being who has been on superficial grounds supposed to fill '' eternity's fearful solitude," to another Being whom we can, through our social nature, understand. "The God whom the Athanasian Creed proclaims," says an able writer, " has never been alone. There has been from all eternity the Father, and the Son in the bosom of the Father ; these eternal Ones, moreover, have been bound, by the eternal Spirit of love, in love's eternal fellowship. The Father's joy from eternity has been to love the Son. ' Thou lovedst me,' said the Lord Jesus, ' before the foundation of the world.' The Son's joy from eternity has been to love the Father, to trust in Him en- tirely, to do His blessed will. ' The Lord possessed me,' are His words, ' from everlasting ; I was by Him, as one brought up with Him ; I was daily His delight, rejoicing al- ways before Him.' No marvel that when such a Being created man, His very first utterance should have been, ' It is not good that the man should be alone.' " * § 7. We consequently posit an Infinite at the back of things, who in the Trinity of His persons in the unity of His essence has all the elements of fellowship, and so is self-sufficing and independent. In such a Being wc can * Tail's '• Thoughts for tlie Thoughtful," p. 6; cf. Kidd's masterly " Essay on the Trinity," pp. 208-230; Haig's "Symbolism," pp. 524- 44 ; and also Prof. Wallace's paper in British and Foreign Evangelical Revieiv, quoted ut snpra. The Social Trinity. 127 trust with confidence. He dwells not in lonely majesty, but in an eternal fellowship. He is thus the ''Blessed God," not the prey of an ''egence " of imperioiis power, but calmly centred in His own perfect nature.'"' For it is a mistake to suppose, as has been done in this discussion, that '* absolute self-sufficiency" on the part of the Infinite implies any "in- difference towards others."t This would be to attribute to the Infinite what is an acknowledged deficiency in the creature. We sometimes blame the independent, not for being inde- pendent in their circumstances, but for being indifferent to others. We feel certain that independence ought to be used to help those who are in need. The good Samaritan may have been no abler to help than the priest and Levite-, but their sin was in being unwilling to help according to their ability. The same criterion applies to God. He is absolutely self- sufficing, but the fellowship of the eternities is the guarantee that He will be gracious. § 8. When we rise to such a conception as this, we see in creation and in providence manifestations of grace. God has not been compelled by any necessity beyond Him or within Him to enter upon the work of creation or the administration of a universe. He might have dwelt in the eternities in the self-sufficiency of a perfect social nature. But He resolved on creation, and surrounded Himself wnth beings akin in nature to Himself, and all in the exercise of a sovereign good pleasure. The society provided for the finite is a gracious, yet only feeble, reflection of the per- fect societ}'^ enjoyed by the persons of the Godhead. The environment with which He has surrounded Himself is on the t3qDe of His own perfect social nature ; social creatures are but reflecting the image of a social God. Hence the * Appendix. Note G. t Cf. Bowne's " Studies in Theism," p. 372. 128 Does God Answe7^ Prayer? Trinity is no expression of a temporal and economic arrange ment, but is an immanent, essential, and eternal truth.* §9. The relations within the Godhead, therefore, claim our attention. From all eternity God was in possession of full fellowship ; the Father's love had its object in the Son and its agent in the Spirit, and the Son responded to the Father's love, returning its full tide, the Spirit once more being the agent; while the Spirit exercised His love through the love of the Father and of the Son. Thus communion of the most perfect character existed from all eternity within the Godhead, And this communion, as already hinted, was not lonely soliloquy, but real dialogue and address. In other words, we have in the fellowship of the persons of the Trinity the first example of efficacious prayer. The prayers of Jesus Christ, as we shall afterwards have occasion to point out, are the expression within human hearing of the desires of the Godhead, and eliciting their due response. The fellowship within the Godhead is the archetype of all true fellowship among the creatures. The fountain-head of prayer is to be found in the Godhead itself. Hence a writer already referred to does not hesitate to say that ''the three persons of the Godhead work prayerfully upon one another ";t and consequently that it is in the Trinity we have the guarantee and ground of prayer. % Prayer con- sequently becomes a lifting of the human spirit into a Divine life-sphere ; a communication to men of some measure of the Divine fellowship. § * Cf. "Die Lehre vom Gebet aus der immanenten mid okonomiscben Trinit'at," abgeleitet von Dr. Richard Lober, s. 9. t Lober, ut supra, s. 8. X Ibid., s. 31. § Ibid., s. 37, also s. 71 ; cf. also " Prayer as based on the Being of God," by Rev. J. B. Fletcher, M.A., pp. 40,"73, etc. TJie Fellowship of the Trinity. 129 § 10. We have already observed that nature is, as a matter of fact, constructed upon the prayer plan. And now we see from the self-sufficiency of the Godhead that it has its archetype and reason within the Divine nature itself. The ineffable communion of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is feebly imaged in the social intercourse of the creatures. Not only so, but we have seen how the lower animals can express by cries and signs of various kinds their wants to the higher race of man; and man can interpret these inarticulate prayers, and respond to them. Are we then to suppose that prayer can thus obtain between lower and higher beings in the scale of existence, but that the prayer plan must suddenly cease when the highest of the animated creation ventures to appeal to the infinite Spirit above him ? Is it not more reasonable to believe that the grace which is found within the order of nature extends to the relations between the social Being above us, and the intel- ligent creatures of His hands ? Such an interruption of the law of prayer just at the point where it is pre-eminently desirable is contrary to the whole analogy of the system. The fact of our being overshadowed by a '' social Trinity," and not by a solitary Being, encourages us in believing that the prayer principle, instead of being broken in the relations between Him and men, will be maintained and illustrated in its full meaning and strength. In truth the prayer from man to God is the admission of man to a measure of that perfect fellowship which obtains between the persons of the adorable Trinity. It is man knocking at the golden gate in hope of participating in that Divine peace and satis- faction which God has enjoyed from all eternity ; and the '' blessed God " extends the privilege of His fellowship and His peace as a matter of free grace. § II. Hence we recognize and we address God as self- 9 130 Does God Answer Prayer? sufficing. We cannot recognize in creation something necessary to His satisfaction, but a manifestation of sove- reign and gracious pleasure. We refuse to bind the free and social Spirit at the back of all with the green withes of necessity; we rather recognize Him as crowned with matchless grace. He will not put us to confusion if we trust Him in the intellectual or in the moral domain. On this ethical basis we may confidently repose. The whole analogy of the system in which we find ourselves points to prayer as a principle; and high above all we recognize fellowship as obtaining between the persons of the adorable Trinity. In the light of all around us, and of all above us, we refuse to be robbed of our privilege of prayer in the kingdom of grace. PART IV, ^txx^CKtxon. CONTENTS OF PART IV. CHAP. X. THE BIBLE A POSITIVE PROOF THAT PRAYER HAS BEEN EFFICACIOUS. ,, XI. THE LIFE OF CHRIST, ANOTHER POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER. ,, XII. THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY, ANOTHER POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER. ,, XIII. THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION, ANOTHER POSI- TIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER. ,, XIV. THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT, A FINAL POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER. CHAPTER X. THE BIBLE A POSITIVE PROOF THAT PR A YER HA S BEEN EFFICA CIO US. CHAPTER X. THE BIBLE A POSITIVE PROOF THAT PRAYER HAS BEEN EFFICACIOUS. § I. Til /"E have hitherto been dealing with the reason- V V ableness of prayer, and have succeeded, we hope, in showing that it is eminently reasonable to address the infinite and free and social and self-sufficing Spirit, who is behind all, and who is debarred in no wise from answering our petitions. But it will be said that this is only theory, and that it admits of no real verification ; con- sequently the cautious and scientific mind will not accept an unverified hypothesis. It is needful, therefore, for us to take up in this stage of our work the question of veri- fication, and to determine, if possible, its exact application to the prayer problem before us. § 2. And here we must refer to the proposal made in 1872 by an anonymous friend of Professor Tyndall to sub- ject the efficacy of prayer to an experimental test.^ Under the notion that up to that date efficacious praj^er had received no verification, he came forward with ^' Hints towards a Serious Attempt to Estimate its Value." * They amounted substantially to this — that two wards of the same hospital should be taken, the same skill and treatment being administered to the patients, while one of the wards * Contemporary Revieio foi" July 1872. 136 Does God Aitswer Prayer? was to be isolated from the intercessory prayers of Chris- tendom, the other enjoying them ; and then, after three or five years' experiment, the comparative results were to be taken, and thus the action of the supernatural in nature quantitatively determined. § 3. The absurdity of the proposal has not been suffi- ciently exposed. It was scientifically absurd, for it implied that experiment is the only way of verifying an hypothesis. Now, so far from this being the case, there are many theories accepted by scientific men which do not admit of verification by experiment at all. Who, for example, will undertake to verify the hypothesis of evolution by experiment ? Has any investigator either the time or the appliances needful for the experiment ? The nebular theory, the atomic theory, the ether theory — all these, and numbers more, do not admit of verification by experiment. Hence, to quote a writer whose impartiality is beyond question, the fallacy of Dr. Tyndall's friend's proposal " resides in tacitly assum- ing that verification is the synonym of experiment — that experiment is in every case the only means we have of verifying theory." * Besides, the proposal was absurd by reason of its anthropomorphism. For it attributed to the Most High a want of sympathy w^hich we would not expect to find in saintly souls among ourselves. Even supposing that Christendom, through amazing simplicity, had fallen into the proposal of this sceptical inquirer, and had allowed one ward in any hospital to be isolated from its interces- sions and its sympathies, are we to attribute such lack of sympathy to Him whom we believe to be at the back of all ? This crude anthropomorphism is especially unworthy of a school of thinkers who are never done denouncing anthropomorphism in all the moods and tenses. If it be * Romanes' "Christian Prayer and General Laws,'" p. 129. The Proposed Hospital Test. 137 urged by them that they themselves do not entertain it, but simply suggest it as the belief of others, they should guard themselves against '' bearing false witness against their neighbours," and should give us credit for at least sufficient intelligence to expose such a superficial fallacy. Still further, the proposal is theologically absurd, for it overlooks the fact that the motive in prayer gives it its ethical value, and consequently a prayer, if presented to satisfy sceptics, could not be recognized as the simple prayer of faith to which professedly the Most High responds. The scepticism underlying the procedure would vitiate the whole experi- ment. Hence the proposal, no matter how it is taken, is absurd.''^ § 4. As a matter of fact, the experiment was never tried. Christendom could never be reduced to such a state of childishness as to undertake it. Besides, another member of the Agnostic school came forward the very next month to demonstrate from statistics that prayer has been ineffi- cacious. In the Fortnightly Review for August 1872, Mr. Galton, famous through his investigations about '' Hereditary Genius," gave the public '^ Statistical Inquiries into the Efficacy of Prayer," in which he proceeds from statistics about the longevity of sovereigns, who are specially prayed for, about the fate of missionaries, about still-births in Christian as compared with irreligious households, about the insanity of the nobility, and suchlike, to declare that prayer has been shown by statistics to have no real efficacy. Mr. Galton's paper forestalled all possibility of the experi- ment, and demonstrated how easy it is to pile up statistics to support a foregone conclusion. For Mr. Galton forgot that prayer to God is not the wayward expression of spoiled children who refuse to be denied any desire they entertain, * Appendix. Note H. 138 Does God Answer Prayer? but is the humble expression of those who believe that the Father above is infinitely wiser than they are, and is asked to take His own wiser way, should it not coincide with the petitions of His people. The intercessors do not insist on the longevity of sovereigns, or the immunity of mission- aries from danger and death, or the immunity of Christian households from still-births, or of nobles from insanity, as covenant engagements with God which He has bound Himself to respect. All these matters are left at His throne of grace to await ''the good pleasure of His will." Hence the statistics are strangely irrelevant. They have no bearing upon the real question at issue. As the Editor of the Spectator said in his admirable summing up of the controversy in his columns, " We do not doubt that Mr. Galton could disprove the efficacy of (human) love quite as successfully (or unsuccessfully) as the efficacy of prayer." § 5. Are we, then, to give up experiment as inapplicable in the verification of the efficacy of prayer ? By no means ; but only experiment conducted in a sceptical spirit. Let any individual in "an honest and good heart" test the efficacy of prayer, and sooner or later his experiment will be crowned with success.* The testimony of millions of humble-minded and prayerful people has been in favour of the efficacy of prayer. Outwardly they have not had any marked advantage over prayerless fellows. Those who judge according to appearance may still conclude with the royal preacher, "All things come alike to all." The same accident, the same fatalities may overtake him who prays and him who blasphemes ; but inwardly the prayerful per- son has a perfectly different experience, and could testify with David, "The righteous cry, and the Lord hearcth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles. The Lord is nigh * Appendix. Note I. • Prayer not to encourage Mercenaries. 139 unto them that are of a broken heart, and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. . . . The Lord redeemeth the soul of His servants ; and none of them that trust in Him shall be desolate " (Psalm xxxiv. 17-22). § 6. The best of reasons, moreover, can be given why prayer should not be visibly efficacious, so as to be made a matter of statistics. We quote the eloquent words of the great French preacher, M. Bersier, upon this point : " You wish that prayer should be visibly efficacious, but at what a price it would be ! You would ask for deliverance from sickness and temptation, and immediately your prayer would be heard, and suffering and evil would flee away like a shadow, and upon your smoothed path all asperities would disappear. Your desires, as soon as formed, would be visibly accomplished. And do you not see that all would become Christians like you, and all, like you, would pray ? From love ? Oh, not at all, but from well-ordered interest. And why not pray to this God who replies immediately to whoever invokes Him — this God who encircles His own with an immediate and visible protection ? Come, O ye mercenaries ! come, ye able calculators ! come, and bend the knee. Recompense is guaranteed you. For you heaven is in store, and for you, in the meantime, good fortune here below ! Away with the cross, away with griefs, away with sacrifice. ... If this is what you wish, very well, the God of the Gospel does not desire it. He has never promised to those who follow Him the visible de- liverance ; He has said that they must suffer, as men, in the first place, and, in addition, as Christians. He seems to abandon them to the apparent fatality of circumstances ;' nothing distinguishes them in the eyes of the flesh. Stricken just like others, oftentimes more than others, they suffer, they die ; but, under this apparent chance [hazard), thej'- 140 Does God Anszuer Prayer? discern a Divine hand, they walk by faith and not by sight ; and it is under this austere discipline that there is produced that which is grandest and loveliest on earth — the love which serves God without self-seeking, the love which sacrifices to God its felicity, its security, its joy, and which descends to the sublimest abnegation." * § 7. But if wc rested the verification of efficacious prayer upon these private experiences, we should understate most grievously the evidence. There is a series of outstanding facts which can, in fairness, only be interpreted on the suppo- sition that prayer has been efficacious. And that this method of verification is valid will appear on the least thought. '' How is a theory verified ? " asks Professor Bowne. '' If it be such that observation is possible, it is verified by observa- tion. But most theories are not susceptible of such a test, and here verification takes another form. In this case, we reason back from the facts to a sufficient cause, and verifi- cation consists in showing that only this theory will meet the conditions of the problem. Where such a showing is possible, the theory becomes a matter of knowledge. The demonstration of by far the greater part of scientific hypotheses consists simply in showing that the facts are unintelligible upon any other assumption. No one ever saw an atom, and no one ever will. But the phenomena of matter are inexplicable except upon the atomic theory, and this fact is its only proof. No one ever saw the ether ; but we cannot comprehend heat and light without assuming it. To show this is to verify the theory. No one was present when the earth was fluid. We verify such an as- sumption only by showing that the present state of the earth is incomprehensible without it. The hypothesis of a spiritual Author of nature is verified in the same way ; * Cf. Bersier's "Sermons,"' tome iv., pp. 119- 120. The Bible Opaque if not Inspired. 141 and if it can be shown that the physical universe is unintel- ligible without this assumption, and that from every side we are led down to this ultimate affirmation, then the hypothesis of an intelligent Creator has just the same kind of verification that the bulk of scientific theories have." '■''" In the very same way, then, we take up the Bible as a book, and we affirm that it is an opaque fact in literature on any other supposition than this of the efficacy of prayer. § 8. It will not be needful to enter at any length upon the analysis of this unique literature. Its historic growth, its development as an organic whole, the steady yet patient march which it has made from " the ruling ideas in early ages " to the perfect morality of the Sermon on the Mount, constitute interesting inquiries, but we do not deem it needful to enter into them. Our argument only requires that we should emphasize the fact that the authors of the different parts of Revelation were of the prayerful type, and their productions prove that their prayers for inspiration were efficacious. If it be said that the inspiration of Scrip- ture is not different in kind, but only in degree, from the in- spiration of other literature, — although w^e do not personally accept such a position, — it strengthens rather than weakens our present argument ; for it really shows that the inspira- tions from above have been wider than man's supplications for them — that the Hearer and Answerer of prayer has outrun man's expectations from Him. Those who looked unto Him have been enlightened, and even those who did not look to Him have been enlightened in their measure too, § 9. We have already referred to the fact of inspiration being experienced by scientific men as they advance from the induction of facts to the law which the}'' embody ; and Cf. Bowne's " Studies in Theism," pp. 97-8, 142 Does God Answer Prayer? we shall have occasion to refer to this again. We merely notice, in passing, these inspirations of science and of lite- rature as incomings of the great Spirit upon the souls of men, and consequently we are not necessitated to enter upon the vexed question of Biblical inspiration in verifying the efficacy of prayer. Granting to the word inspiration the widest meaning, we are surely warranted in pointing out the significant fact that the authors of this incomparable literature were, without exception, prayerful men ; and, in looking to God for help in their literary undertakings, they certainly received it. Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and all the prophets were men of prayer ; they avowedly held fellowship with God, and their productions are proof positive that their prayers for light and guidance were efficacious. Let any one try to account for the Bible on the theory that prayer has been a delusion, and that its efficacy is fallacious, and he will require an amount of credulity on the part of the acceptors of his theory which will prove surprising. Sober- mindedness can accept no other conclusion than that the Bible is the production of prayerful men, whose pra3^ers were answered. § ID. It has been very properly demonstrated that "the Bible is not such a book as man would have made if he could, or could have made if he would." * It has been asserted with truth that the Bible is a miracle ; that is, no known human forces could have united to produce it without the aid of God.f Or, to put the Divine character of the book in the language of a more recent writer, " We * Cf. the admirable volume by the late Professor Henry Rogers on the " Superhuman Origin of the Bible inferred from Itself, "/a^j-zw. t Cf. "The Bible a Miracle; or, the Word of God its Own Witness," by the Rev. David Macdill. The Law of Biblical Revelation. 143 have," says Dr. Newman Smyth, " in the progress of doc- trine in the Bible, a most striking pecuHarity of it, which we cannot quietly overlook. Here is an order or evolution of truth which requires as its sufficient cause some one power or law of revelation. What was that guiding principle, that co-ordinating power of the Bible ? Such questions press significantly for an answer when we observe the evidences of a higher design in the completed Bible. Like nature itself, amid all its diversities, the Bible is one continuous whole, and one grand design. But that design was not in the minds of the successive workmen. They knew not the perfect whole into which their lives and work, as we now can see, are fitted. Prophets and apostles, called by the Lord to speak to their own age, little knew what a Bible they were making for mankind. That work was beyond their ken ; that design was larger than the knowledge of the very men who were providentially called to execute it. Our Bible, in its completeness and its unity, might be a vast surprise to Moses or Isaiah ; and Paul, and the last of the disciples, St. John, hardly could have stood far enough away from their own work to see how perfectly it com- pleted the whole. This great design of the religion of Israel is an ultimate fact to be accounted for, — a design which was ages in execution ; which was carried on by men separated by hundreds of years ; which began in a word of promise, and ended in a fact of redemption in the fulness of time. ... Its law and progress and unity lie in the one purpose of a self-reveali ng God."* § II. We hold, consequently, that in the Bible we have a positive proof that God hears and answers prayer. The book is a prayer-product. Eliminate this element of prayer, \ "Old Faiths in New Light," pp. 56-58, in Scribner's Second American Edition, 144 Does God Answer Prayer? and the book becomes inexplicable. Accept the theory of efficacious prayer, and the literary work becomes luminous and intelligible. Let men say in addition, if they please, that we have inspiration beyond the Bible, all such asser- tions are in favour of the idea of communion between God and His intelligent creatures. The gate is open ; commu- nications have been made to men ; " thoughts beyond their thoughts" to authors have been given; some prayed for their inspiration, and received it in answer to their peti- tions. Others have got inspirations of inferior qualit}^ ; and for them some may never have thought of praying ; but the whole phenomenon of inspiration from beyond constitutes proof positive that God can commune with men ; and that, as a matter of fact, He has done so with incomparable effect within the domain of the Biblical Revelation. CHAPTER XL THE LIFE OF CHRIST ANOTHER POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PRA YER. lo CHAPTER XI. THE LIFE OF CHRIST ANOTHER POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PR A YER. § I. \ yl /E have seen that inspiration granted to authors V V is a positive proof of God's communion with men, and, since the authors of sacred Scripture have given us the most important inspirations, and prayerfully sought them, the Bible as a prayer product so far demonstrates the efficacy of prayer. But we have something more important than a book wherewith to verify the efficacy of prayer. We have a life, — th4* life of Jesus Christ, — and we propose here to show that^it is absolutely unintelligible on any other supposition than that prayer was efficacious. § 2. We need not pause here upon the question of the reality of Christ's life. It is admitted that it must have been lived, or it never could have been written. It is a recognized fact of our mental nature that our imaginations are not absolutely creative ; that is to say, we never by imagination can do more than present in new combinations what has been previously in some form before the mind. In other words, imagination works in mosaic, and presents in new and striking forms the little elements of experience previously possessed. But in the biographies of Jesus we have a portrait so original in its character, so distinct from all before or since, that we are shut up to the conclusion that it must have been an actual contribution to human experi- 148 Does God Answer Prayer? ence, and could by no possibility have been a literary inven- tion. Human nature has no such creative powers as to imaginatively construct a life like that of Jesus. § 3. Now when we take up this unique life of Jesus we find that in it He professes no independence of spirit. His words are, '' The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do ; for what things soever He doeth, them also doeth the Son likewise." His whole profession was that His works and words were not His own, but the Father's who sent Him. The spirit which He exhibits is that of perfect dependence. He could not, by which is meant, He would not do anything of Himself, but always in felt fellowship with the Father. Prayer was the means employed b}'' Jesus to secure that perfect rapport of spirit with the Father, out of which all His work must come. Holding His high counsel with the Father, obtaining thereby a perfect knowledge of the Father's views, He met His work and accomplished it in a spirit of perfect unison with God. Tennyson, in speaking of Tlie Poet, has said — "The poet in a golden clime was l:)orn. Witli golden stars above ; Dowei'd with hate of hate, the scorn of scorn, The love of love. " He saw through life and death, through good and , He saw through his own soul ; The marvel of the everlasting will, An open scroll, Before him lay." It was into this "golden clime " Jesus rose regularly through prayer. He became thus the greatest of the Seers; the everlasting will of God unrolled itself before His spiritual vision ; He thus learned what the Father's will was, that He might faithfully do it. yestts the most Pray erf id of Men. 149 § 4. Hence an essential element of His life was pray erf uhtess. All the evangelists make this plain. " All of them," it has been said, ''give prominence to this feature of His earthly life, making it impossible for us even in imagination to separate prayer from the life of Jesus."* We are told of His prayer at His baptism, of His going into a solitary place to pray, of withdrawing into the wilderness to pray, of His continu- ing all night in prayer to God before the appointment of the disciples, of being alone praying, of His prayer at the trans- figuration, of His ceasing on one occasion to pray, and then teaching the disciples the Lord's Prayer ; of His praying in connection with various miracles, of His intercessory prayer with the disciples, of His prayer in Gethsemane, upon the Cross, and at the table at Emmaus after the Resurrection. In fact, the life of Jesus is essentially of the prayerful type. It may be safely said that Jesus was the most prayerful person who ever lived in this world. § 5. Now our contention is that the life of Jesus, unique and perfect as it appears, is proof positive that His prayers were efficacious. Having sought the Father's face in secret, as He recommended His disciples to do, the Father rewarded Him openly in the magnificent life-work He accomplished among men. There are three elements in this demonstra- tion to which we would briefly refer. First, the sinlessness of Jesus proves the efficacy of His prayers. That every attempt to cast aspersion upon the character of Jesus has hitherto failed, we assume. We might refer to Ullmann's delightful work on "The Sinlessness of Jesus; an Evidence of Chris- tianity," where the argument is stated with admirable clearness ; or to the late Canon Mozley's essay on, " Of Christ Alone without Sin," where the possible objections to it are handled with conspicuous ability. We content ourselves, * Blaikie's "Glimpses of the Inner Life of our Lord." p. 228. 150 Does God Answer Prayer? however, with a quotation from Keim, whose free handling of our Lord's history makes him an unexceptionable witness. He isays : " Any one who has given himself to the contempla- tion of the words and acts of our Lord receives from it irresistibly this impression, — here we have before us a con- science which has never felt the sting of the sense of guilt. And this is not a case of a moralist of a low or easy standard of morality. Oh no ! It is He who branded with the character of sin a bare look, an idle word — and, behind the veil of outward actions, all impurity of the heart and motives. He strongly rebuked His age ; He made His disciples blush for their weaknesses ; He made them pray for the forgiveness of their sins. But He, the Man of the most absorbing voca- tion, of the vastest mission. He who was called upon every day to make His sublime spirit bend to the requirements of the engagement by which He had bound Himself to a life of humility and of self-renunciation, of gentle endurance, and of silent submission, — He never prayed for pardon for Himself, not even at Gethsemane or Golgotha. He walks with perfect constancy in the sunshine of the paternal love of God ; He compels other men to believe in His perfect goodness ; He pronounces forgiveness upon sinners in the name of God ; He dies for them, and ascends to heaven to take His place upon the judgment seat of the all-holy God." * Now we assume that Jesus prayed for deliverance from evil, as He directed His disciples to do ; and consequently we maintain that this greatest miracle of all history, a sinless Man in such a sinful world, is proof positive that the prayers He presented to the Most High were efficacious. § 6. Secondly, the miracles Jesus Christ performed were proofs positive of the efficacy of His prayers. The reason why we touch upon this point is to emphasize the relation '"' " Dei- Geschichtliche Cbrjstus," s. 109, etc. Miracles done by Jestis tJirotigh Prayer. 151 oar Lord's miracles bear to prayer. An attentive study of the Gospel miracles will show that they were all professedly done through prayer to the Father. In many cases we see Jesus praying previous to the performance of the miracles ; in the other cases we have every reason to believe that the prayer was offered, though not audibly. The actual miracle was always accepted b3^ Christ as an answer to prayer. Now, when we take with us the fact of Christ's sinlessness, of His perfect rapport with the Father's will, we can see how reasonable it is to believe that the sinless Man should be endowed with such marvellous dominion over nature, and by prayer work incomparable wonders.* Perfect will had committed to it perfect power. The dominion of man over nature, which had been lost through sin, is here restored to the sinless representative who in the fulness of time appears. § 7. We have already referred to the alleged incompati- bility of miracles with the reign of law. We have made it plain, we hope, that the persistence of the present system has for its basis not physical necessity, but the " good pleasure " of the Great Spirit who will not put His creatures to intellectual confusion. The reality of the Gospel miracles will put no clear thinker to intellectual confusion, especially when we perceive their glorious moral purpose and mean- ing.t They were part and parcel of the revelation of God which Jesus conveyed ; they cannot be separated from His moral teaching, which was interwoven with the miracles all through ; they were simply the command over nature which a perfectly holy and sinless Being, with corresponding insight, may reasonably be supposed to acquire ; and they * Cf. Godet's "Conferences Apoloi:jetiques.'' No. TIT., " Les Mi- racles de Jesus Christ," pp. 17-31. t Appendix. Note J. 152 Does God Answer Prayer? threaten no science properly so called now. As a timely demonstration of the accord existing between Jesus and the Father, they served a most important purpose. But we do not insist on miracles as existing now ; rather do w^e accept the conclusion that for wisest purposes they have long since ceased.* As, however, the life of Jesus Christ would be unintelligible without them, we accept them in their entirety, and point to them as proof positive in our Lord's time ot the efficacy of prayer. § 8. Thirdly, the originality of Christ's character and teach- ing is another positive proof of the efficacy of prayer. It may be safely said that in the antecedents of Christ we can find no sufficient reason for His peculiar characteristics and doctrine. He was not what the Jews expected with the prophetic books in their hands for centuries. Jesus was cast in no mould of Jewish prejudice ; to the surprise of all, He proved a very cosmopolitan in His toleration and His sympathies. He was, moreover, as far in advance of every heathen ideal. Neither Jewish nationalism nor Pagan culture can account for the message and mission of Jesus. He came to establish a kingdom not by force of arms, nor by worldly expedients of any kind, but by the force of love and from within. To triumph over human sin and passion He became a sacrifice Himself ; and now He reigns over Christendom and far beyond it from His Cross.t Now our contention is, that if the prayers of Christ had not been efficacious, no such original and influential career could have taken place in history. For it is plain that prayer was the sheet anchor of Jesus ; it .is plain that He, beyond all other * Appendix. Notes K and L. * Cf. Dr. Matheson's interesting Essay, published in the Contei)7porary RevircV, upon the "Originality of the Character of Christ"; also Harris's " Great Teacher," Essay II. Chrisfs GetJisemane Prayer anszuered. 153 men, prayed without ceasing ; and that He recommended prayerfulness to all His people. To suppose that He was deceived in His doctrine of the efficacy of prayer and, not- withstanding the deception, lived the life He lived and died the death He died, is beyond all our powers of credulity. § 9. There is one point about the prayers of Christ to which we would, in conclusion, refer, as it bears upon the matter now before us. It has been asserted by the Rev. F. W. Robertson, and endorsed by others, that in one case, at least, our Lord's prayer did not succeed — in other words, was inefficacious — viz., when in Gethsemane He prayed that the cup might pass from Him.^' It is argued from this refusal of Christ's petition to the possible refusal of ours, and that prayer with Christ, as with us, must be merely '' to change the will human into submission to the will Divine." But there is no necessity for supposing any refusal on the Father's part of the petition of the self-sacrificing Son. The deliverance, which in another place we are told He sought with strong crying and tears, " and was heard in that He FEARED," was given Him in the Resurrection, the calm assurance of which delivered Him meanwhile from His intolerable mental agony.t Hence we decline to accept the interpretation which suggests that even in one instance Christ's pra3^er was inefficacious. His prayers were alwa3^s answered, because His prayers expressed perfect unison with the Father's will, and perfect loyalty to the Father's honour and glory. § 10. We might have entered upon Christ's doctrine about prayer; but as we are here simply adducing instances * " Sermons," Fourth Series. No. III. ; cf. also James Freeman Clarke's "Christian Doctrine of Prayer," pp. 71-85. * Cf. Dr. John Brown's "Exposition of Hebrews,"' vol. i., pp. 255-6. 154 Does God Answer Prayer? where prayer has been actuaHy answered, we deem it needless to do so. We have already noticed how, in His exposition of what prayer is, He gives us the line of analogy which we have tried faithfully to follow in our argument, and upon His precepts on the subject we need not insist or enlarge.* We content ourselves with maintaining that prayer proved efficacious in the case of Christ, else His incomparable life becomes totally inexplicable and opaque. * Appendix. Note M. CHAPTER XII. THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY ANOTHER POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PRA YER. CHAPTER XII. THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY ANOTHER POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER. § I. 'T^HE life of Jesus, as we have seen, was so X constructed as to be only explicable on the supposition of the efficacy of prayer. Its apparent failure and its real success pronounce it to be par excellence a prayer- product. And now we are to advance to the consideration of Christianity, and to ask calmly if its progress can be at all accounted for without the supposition of the efficacy of prayer. § 2. And here we must carefully consider on what lines the Christian life has been constructed. Now it so happens that Christianity has been, for the most part, embraced by the poor. The policy of the poor Galilean Peasant, who founded the Christian system, was to devote His strength to the conversion of the poor. It was on this account that the imprisoned Baptist began to think that perhaps another Messiah should be expected by the people (cf. Matt. xi. yd). It was among the poor and the heavy-laden that the cause at first made progress (Matt. xi. 28-30). Besides, in coming to Jesus and espousing His cause, the poor and weary ones received no worldly compensations. Some got their bodies cured, and once or twice a miraculous meal, but no one who followed Christ in hope of worldly rewards received them. Judas Iscariot set the tragedy of worldly expectation and its disappointment in unmistakable relief. The iol- 158 Does God Anszuer Pi^ayer? lowers of Christ were made able-bodied, if they happened to be sick, but with a view to their helping themselves and other people in the spirit of industry and of philanthropy. § 3. What did the Apostles gain by following Christ ? It is easy to say now that they gained unprecedented in- fluence in human history, and that from their thrones they are at this moment ruling the world under Jesus. But had they any conception of the mightj^ meaning of their careers ? Could this thought of posthumous influence and tardy fame have in the least sustained them in presence of the diffi- culties, persecution, and martyrdom which befell them ? Every impartial mind must admit that no worldly compen- sation ever lured these meek men on to their inheritance of the earth. § 4. What was true of the Apostles has been the rule of the Christian life ever since. '' For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called ; but God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty ; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are ; that no flesh should glory in His presence" (i Cor. i. 26-29). ''Hearken, my beloved brethren. Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him ? But ye have despised the poor" (James ii. 5-6). From the very first, therefore, the poor and the heavy-laden were attracted to Christianity; they were attracted by no thought of worldly advantage since such mercenary motives have, as a rule, been discouraged and disappointed, and the same classes have been " the bone and sinew " of the system ever since. Rich people do occa- sionally embrace Christianity, but they have always been the To suffer as a Christian, 159 exceptions and not the rule, and worldliness has never been any large factor in the progress of the system. § 5. Moreover, the way in which the efficacy of prayer has been reaHzed by Christians in all ages goes to substan- tiate this position. We concede to our opponents the fact that the sensible signs they demand as proofs positive of the efficacy of prayer are not granted, and for the very sufficient reason that, if they were, the Christian Church would be deluged with mere mercenaries. But just on this account we argue that Christians must have had spiritual coxn- pensation, else they could not have continued on their tried and desolate way. Called " Christians " first at Antioch, '^ Christians," and not Jesuites or Messianites, the " Greeks " being so influential as to give the name to the infant Church,"^' they soon discovered that it was a usual thing, as Peter puts it in his first Epistle, to '' suffer as a Christian." They could not mistake their Lord's meaning when He said, " Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for My sake and the Gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions, and in the world TO COME ETERNAL life" (Mark X. 2 9-3o).t The compensa- tions in the present life required to be backed up by the promise of eternal life in the world to come, because of their accompanying persecutions. The history of Chris- tianity as a whole, and the present experience of Christians, go to demonstrate that the compensations are mainly * Cf. Acts i. 20, 26. In the former verse the reading, according to Tischendorf and Tregelles, is EWTf)vas, not EXXT/j'to-rds ; see also Dr. Orlando T. Dobbin's "Tentamen Antistraussianum," pp. 60-71. f Appendix. Note N. i6o Does God Anszuei^ Prayer? spiritual in character. For suppose that the compensations were of a worldly character, that the '' hundredfold " actually came to professing Christians upon worldly lines, they would beat hollow every other ''investment." No stock-jobbing nor manipulation of the money market could compete with a hundredfold of recompense. The "knowing ones " in such a case would universally embrace such a system, and the triumph of Christianity would be as sudden and as complete as the most sanguine and impatient could desire. But it so happens that the compensations are not so palpable as to allure the worldly-minded. They remain so far removed by sense and. sight as to lead worldly people to ignore, if not deny, their existence altogether. Hence we maintain that the main portion of the Christian's com- pensation is spiritual both in this world and in the next. We deliberately add " and in the next," because the super- ficial objections to the Christian ideal of the future life rest for the most part upon the assumption that believers hope for '' worldly " compensations in the other world. Whereas the fact is that no sober-minded Christian expects luxurious idleness or a kingdom of ease beyond the grave ; he expects no '' eternity of the tabor," as the rhetorician of Positivism has called it ; but he hopes and longs for another life of fuller consecration unto and fuller fellov^rship with God. § 6. We thus argue from the unworldliness of the Christian system to the absolute efficacy of Christian prayer. We argue that the system has been so moulded upon unworldly lines, that unless the suffering saints had been supported from unseen sources, they must have succumbed. Our argument will not, we trust, be mistaken. It is the un- worldliness of the compensations of Christianity, taken as a whole, which constitutes a striking positive proof of the efficacy of Christian prayer. This will enable us to Gibbon s and Lee ky s iiisiifficient Explanation. 1 6 1 estimate at its proper value the attempt made by such historians as Gibbon and Lecky to minimise the signifi- cance of the Christian testimony. Gibbon attempts to account for the progress of Christianity by assigning five causes for it, which have a natural explanation, and are, he imagines, sufficient.* But it has been clearly demon- strated that in his estimate he is totally mistaken. f Lecky again would have us to believe that the history of the Christian success may be explained on natural principles. " No other religion," he asserts, " under such circumstances, had ever combined so many distinct elements of power and attraction. , . . The polytheist, admitting that Christianity might possibly be true, was led by a mere calculation of prudence to embrace it, and the fervent Christian would shrink from no suffering to draw those whom he loved within its pale. Nor were other inducements wanting. To the confessor was granted in the Church a great and venerable authority, such as the bishop could scarcely claim. To the martyr, besides the fruition of heaven, belonged the highest glory on earth. By winning that blood-stained crown, the meanest Christian slave might gain a reputation as glorious as that of a Decius or a Regulus. His body was laid to rest with a sumptuous splendour; his relics, embalmed or shrined, were venerated with an almost idolatrous homage. The anniversary of his birth into another life was commemorated in the Church, and before the great assembly of the saints his heroic sufferings were recounted. How, indeed, should he not * Appendix. Note O. t Among other refutations of Gibbon see the admirable "Apology for Christianity in a Series of Letters addressed to Edward Gibbon? Esq.,." by R. Watson, D.D., F.R.S., Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. II 1 62 Does God Answer Prayer? be envied ? He had passed away into eternal bliss. He had left on earth an abiding name. By the ' baptism of blood ' the sins of a life had been in a moment effaced."* But surely this is an utterly insufficient account of the heroism of the first Christian martyrs. Granting that when the Church got powerful after Constantine, a certain worldly halo might reasonably be expected to encircle the martyrs of the faith, which might make martyrdom an object of desire, this will not at all account for the heroism of the earlier martyrs. Was it the hope of posthumous fame which sustained Stephen in his agony ? And did natural principles alone obtain when men and women were tortured, not accepting deliverance ? When '' others had trials of cruel mockings and scourgings ; yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment ; they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword ; they wandered about in sheepskins and in goatskins ; being destitute, afflicted, tormented (of whom the world was not worthy), they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth," — when, we say, all this was experienced, were the witnesses, in Old Testament, or New Testament times, fortified only by natural principles ? Or is it more reasonable to believe that they found their refuge in God, and that their appeals to Him had proved efficacious ? t § 7. We do not, of course, mean to assert that constancy under great trials and the facing of death itself constitute proof positive of the truth of the principles for which the martyrs suffered. " Every religion," it has been properly said, *'nay, every absurd sect of every religion, has had its zealots, who have not scrupled to maintain their principles at the expense of their lives; and we ought no more to * "History of European Morals," Third Edition, vol. i., pp. 387-90. t Appendix. Note P. Self-sac7^ifice attesting Sincerity. i6 o infer the truth of Christianity from the mere zeal of its propagation, than the truth of Mahometanism from that of a Turk, When a man suifers himself to be covered with infamy, pillaged of his property, and dragged at last to the block or the stake, rather than give up his opinion, the proper inference is, not that his opinion is true, but that he believes it to be true ; and a question of serious discussion immediately presents itself— upon what foundation has he built his belief? This is often an intricate inquiry, in- cluding in it a vast compass of human learning; a Brahmin or a Mandarin, who should observe a missionary attesting the truth of Christianity with his blood, would, notwith- standing, have a right to ask many questions, before it could be expected that he should give an assent to our faith. In case, indeed, of the Apostles, the inquiry would be much less perplexed ; since it would briefly resolve itself into this — -whether they were credible reporters of facts, which they themselves professed to have seen ; and it would be an easy matter to show that their zeal in attesting what they were certainly competent to judge of, could not pro- ceed from any alluring prospect of worldly interest or ambition, or from any other probable motive than a love of truth,"* But our deduction from the heroism of the early martyrs is simply this, — that, deprived of every earthly support, and leaning on God only, the}^ were enabled b}'' Him to witness a good confession, ''They looked unto Him and were lightened, and their faces were not ashamed," All the persistent effort which has been made to minimise the significance of Christian patience under persecution, cannot rob us of the testimony it aftbrds to the ef^cacy of prayer. The witnesses were prayerful men and women ; they had no possible personal ends to serve by their testi- * *' Watson's Apology," nt supra, pp. 8-9. 164 Does God Answer Prayer? mony; and they showed in their beautiful heroism that the help they hoped for had been granted. § 8. Of course there has been variation in the matter of the prayerfulness. Some Christians pray more than others. As a rule, it has been the individuals who have had most to suffer or most to do who have prayed the most. Around the throne of grace have gathered, as there gathered round the Master in the days of His flesh, the weary and the heavy-laden. And their experience has been that they got through prayer what they could not get elsewhere — a true unburdening. No knowledge of the laws of nature can supply the place of fellowship with God. Prayer has sup- plied the wants of the weary and the heavy-laden, and through it, as through no other medium, have they found rest. The question of Macbeth to the doctor — " Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased ; Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow ; Raze out the written troubles of the brain ; And, with some sweet oblivious antidote, Cleanse the stuffed bosom of that perilous stuff Which weighs upon the heart ? " — this question, we saj^, all doctors of medicine or of science must answer in the negative. Before it all are non-plussed. But God can answer it affirmatively through responses to prayer. The equanimity of Christian experience, in pre- sence of suffering and of trial in their most aggravated forms, can only be accounted for by supposing prayer to have been, and to be still, efficacious. In hospitals for in- curables we have found proofs positive of the reality of religion and of the efficacy of prayer, which cast all scientific objec- tions to the winds, and convinced us, if outward evidence had been needful, that sufferers had still access to the Most High and consolation from Him.* * Appendix. Note Q. CHAPTER XIII. THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION ANOTHER POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PRA YER. CHAPTER XIII. THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION ANOTHER POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER, § I. T N venturing to adduce the history of civilization as X proof positive of the efficacy of prayer, we are at once reminded of the fact that various writers have attempted to account for civilization in such a way as to represent it as in no respect a prayer-product. To go no farther back than Buckle, we find, to use the words of Pro- fessor Jevons, that he '' undertook to write the ' History of Civilization in England,' and to show how the character of a nation could be explained by the nature of the climate and the fertility of the soil. He omitted to explain the contrast between the ancient Greek nation and the present one ; there must have been an extraordinary revolution in the climate or the soil. Auguste Comte detected the simple laws of the course of development through which nations pass. There are always three phases of intellectual con- dition — the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive. Applying this general law of progress to concrete cases, Comte was enabled to predict that in the hierarchy of European nations Spain would necessarily hold the highest place. Such," continues Mr. Jevons, *' are the parodies of science offered to us by the positive philosophers."* § 2. Draper at a later date has treated us to ''A History * *' Principles of Science," pp. 760-1. 1 68 Does God Anszver Prayer ? of the Intellectual Development of Europe," and to the *' History of the Conflict between Religion and Science." As a physiologist, he proposes to account for European development upon physiological principles. History is to be looked at through physiological spectacles, and through these alone, and no wonder he says that it " presents a new aspect to us " under such conditions, The analogy which he works out between the individual organism and the race is necessarily superficial, and can give no adequate account of such a complex problem as human progress. An able critic of the first of Draper's works has said : " In giving his sketch of Greek culture he introduces a superficial account of the Greek philosophy, evidently drawn from second-rate sources. But in his whole narration about European civilization he totally ignores its mental, moral, and metaphysical sciences. A man who can write a history of ' The Intellectual De- velopment of Europe,' and say nothing of the systems of Descartes, Malebranche, and Spinoza, pass over Leibnitz and Kant with a word or two, utterly neglect Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, not refer to Cousin, and pass by in silence Reid, Stewart, Mill, and Hamilton, must have a very singular notion of the task he has set before himself . . . Physiology is excellent and useful in its place, but it is not ethics, it is not metaphysics, it is not theology^ — nor does it give the law even to history. History includes it, but it includes a vast deal more, the development of man's whole nature, under a Divine guidance towards the highest moral and spiritual ends. And this development and those ends are to be explained, if at all, not on physiological, but on moral and spiritual principles. Providence, and not natural law, con- trols the course of history and determines the destiny of the race." * *Cf. Dr. H. B. Smith's "Faith and Philosophy," pp. 354-7. Progress of the Race through great Men. 169 § 3. Of the second work of Dr. Draper we cannot speak in more favourable terms. It is an attempt, and as many passages show, a superficial attempt, to fasten the responsi- bility of Roman Catholic conservatism upon the whole of Christendom. Dr. Newman Smyth has denominated Draper with justice a scientific demagogue, and has pointed out how, in this book upon the ''Conflict of Religion and Science," it never occurs to the author '' to spoil his declama- tion by giving an exact definition of either." ^' Already the popularity of the books, which was mainly in consequence of their hostile attitude towards religion, is showing signs of decay, and they are sure to be esteemed in the course of a very short time at their very moderate value. § 4. We assume, then, that the accounts of civilization hitherto attempted, in which the religious element is sought to be ignored or to be discounted as hostile, are already deemed by thinking men insufficient. We proceed conse- quently to give some account, necessarily brief, of the progress of civilization. And here we note in passing the fact that human societies have not been raised to their state of civilization by '' natural selection." *' It has not been in the manner implied in the doctrine of Darwin and evolution," says Graham, '' that man's mental and moral constitution has been developed, whatever be the truth as regards his physical. It has not been by the superior man winning in the battle of life, and then transmitting his genius to his children, who thus became the origin of a chosen race, that the great man has profited either his species or himself. He has served his kind by the com- munication of his special secret, new truth, superior insight, higher quality of soul, to some of his brother men the likest himself, and these again to others, till in time the * "Old Faiths in New Light," Scribner's Edition, p. 22. 1 70 Does God Answer Prayer ? whole mass of men becomes possessed of his idea, and leavened with his spirit. He served men not by the here- ditary transmission, but by the direct communication, of his soul. Often the man of genius or hero did not win in the battle of life — rarely or never he transmitted his genius to his children, even if he had any. ' He did better ; he gave the benefit of it at once to all who could profit by it, and ultimately to the human race. At least this is what the real and greatest benefactors of their kind have done — the discoverers, inventors, philosophers, poets, lawgivers, and founders of religions, if not the warrior kings and con- querors. Neither Plato, nor Mahomet, nor Columbus, nor Shakespeare, nor Newton produced appreciable effect on the world through the transmission of their peculiar qualities by heredity. They did not thus distribute the germs of their genius at last through their countryrrien and mankind. The mariner of their action on men was different ; but the result was more speed}^ as well as more effectual. They delivered their message, did their work, and others found it directly profitable and acceptable to them. They lifted up the others nearer to their own sublime heights ; and by such a process it has ever been that real progress has been made — by the species as a whole endeavouring to expand itself to the dimensions of these kingly spirits, who have been its true educators, improvers, and benefactors." * § 5. We proceed consequently to inquire. What share have the prayerful Christ and His prayerful followers had in the work of civilization ? If it must be admitted that Christianity has been a prime civilizing factor, then civili- zation itself becomes of necessity a proof positive of the efficacy of prayer. Now it will not be difficult to show that civilization has been in very large measure a Christian * " The Creed of Science," pp. 73-74. Christianity as a Civilizing Element. 171 product. Let us start with the ApostoUc times. The Apostolic Church was a missionary church. To what races did it address itself? To what the Germans call the " culture-peoples," as distinguished from the '' nature- peoples." It was to Greece and Rome, the most civilized nations of their time, that the Apostles carried the message of Christianity. They found in the Greek and Roman civilizations such elements as slavery, contempt for human as well as animal life, and the degradation of women. Without encouraging any servile war or becoming agitators in a secular sense, they dropped into the minds of men those seeds of Gospel truth which have resulted in the fruits and flowers of liberty, of the sanctity of life, and of the elevation of women.* It cannot be doubted for a moment by any impartial student of history that '' Christ's religion has, in fact, taken the lead in schemes for the benefit of human society." f It may be further shown that Chris- tianity embodied the good elements in the Oriental and Hellenic civilizations, and passed these on to the later times. It is a large subject, and our limits compel us to be brief; but it may be shown that the Oriental tendency has been to turn the spirit outwards to the world with- out, seeking for objects of reverence, of support, and of guidance ; the Hellenic tendency has been to turn the spirit inwards upon itself, teaching it to rely upon its own im- pulses and powers. In other words, the Oriental deals with the objective as an ideal, while the Hellenist deals with the subjective, becomes conscious of human dignity, and full of the spirit of enterprise and freedom. % Now Christianity embraces these two tendencies ; it presents a * Cf. Lecky's " tlistory of European Morals,'" vol. ii., passim. t Cf. Woolsey's " Religion of the Present and of the Future/' p. 396. X Cf. Hebberd's "Secret of Christianity," /^j-j-////. 172 Does God Answer Prayer? perfect Saviour as man's grandest ideal, about whom he should become enthusiastic; and it calls upon man to depend upon this Saviour in all his trials and temptations. Thus the Hellenic and Oriental factors are blended in this enthusiasm for a personal Saviour which Christianity inculcates.''' § 6. But now as we pass onwards we find that the Catholic Age, — as, following Mr. Hebberd, we may call the Middle Ages, — instead of being the perpetual antagonist of science and civilization, as Draper would represent it, has been fruitful in civilizing elements. The Church of the Middle Ages made mistakes doubtless, and we have no wish to represent it as perfect. But along with its mistakes there were decided successes. We mention two only. If asceticism was in some respects a mistake, its consecration of labour laid the foundation of modern industry, and was a distinct contribution to civilization. To the Church the world owes the change from what Neander called " the aristocratism of ancient civilization " to the modern ideas of industry as in no respect degrading. f If, again, its appear- ance as a world-power was a mistake, its substitution oi feudalism for vandalism was a distinct contribution to human progress. Feudalism transferred the basis of authority from the personal to the territorial, and out of feudalism grew the patriotism which will die for father- land, a comprehensive spirit which had no existence in the Grecian or Roman civilizations. The Greek or the Roman would die for his city, but it was beyond their grasp to take a whole country, a broad fatherland, into their sympathies. " Classical civilization," says Mr. Hebberd, '' founded upon * Appendix. Note R. f Cf. Bayne's "Biographical, Critical, and Miscellaneous Essays," p. 36, etc. Feudalism as an Element in Progress. 173 a purely personal basis, was of too subtle and delicate a nature to thrive except beneath the guardianship of city walls, in some few favoured spots of Southern Europe. Carried over a wide area, by the brute force of the Roman soldiery, it had formed a frail and transient organization of society, the quick decay of which had only been hastened b}^ the shock of invasion. The Empire fell, because classical civilization was adapted only to a city and not to a con- tinent. A new spirit and a new order of ideas were needed to permanently civilize the wide area of Europe. The basis of such a civilization it was the mission of Catholic feudalism to supply. Its first work was to repress that vagrancy natural to the Germanic bands — natural, indeed, to all men whose only bond of union is the senti- ment of fidelity to their chieftain. It accomplished this by that substitution of a territorial for a personal basis of sovereignty which we have already described. Instead of the old Germanic impulse which ranged a roving band of warriors around the standard of some favourite leader, it substituted the new sentiment of attachment to the soil. It made the permanent possession of the land the sole source of all social pre-eminence and political authority. Thus the nomadic instinct was restrained, and a fixed and stable population was formed. . . . Under the subtle and mysterious feeling of attachment to the soil which feudalism had generated, they came to recognize each other as inhabitants of a common country. . . . The civic pa- triotism of classical life had been replaced by that more comprehensive love of country which forms the absorbing political sentiment of modern times."* We shall have something further to say in the next chapter about our indebtedness to the Middle Ages. * Hebberd's "Secret of Christianity," pp. 124-6. 174 Does God Ansiver Prayer? § 7 We might tarry over the Reformation period and show that to Christianity the world owes the great doctrine of equaht}'-, with all its civilizing results. We content ourselves with another quotation from Mr. Hebberd, whose book deserves most attentive study. " Catholicism taught to Europe that all men were equal within the pale of the Church, all having the same needs and the same Deliverer. But it frowned upon every assertion of political rights ; it inculcated instead the duty of resignation and passive obedience. At last Protestantism came, with its fierce vindication of human rights, but not in the narrow and selfish spirit of the ancient Greek. Men, already taught that they were equal in religious life, began to learn that they were equal before the law- -that all might properly claim the same political privileges and immunities. Evi- dently, then, the sentiment of equality is not so simple in its origin as it seems. Its elements have been gathered from the most divergent systems of thought, and have been combined only through the influence of Christian civiliza- tion." - § 8. We now pass to the present missionary epoch of Christianity, when it is rivalling the spirit of the Apostolic times. Every impartial observer must own that Christianity is at present tlie prime factor in the world's civilization. Who have done most for the " nature-peoples " ? Not cer- tainly any apostles of culture as distinct from Christianity, but the Christian missionaries. Who is it who take the side of the savage races against the selfish and cruel practices ot so-called civilized traders ? Always the Christian mission- aries. Who have accomplished most in tlie elevation of * Ut supra, p. 158 ; also Bayne's Essay on "Characteristics of the Christian Civilization," in his " Biographical, Critical, and Mis- cellaneous Essays," pp. 22-62. Christianity the Prime Factor. 175 savage people into some measure of civilization ? Un- doubtedly the Christian missionaries. Christianity is at the present time the prime culture-factor in the world.* § 9. On the other hand it can be shown that '' the advance of science does not, in fact, secure the advance of society, notwithstanding all the efforts of Christians and other bene- volent persons. As far as the past can teach us, science may add indefinitely to its stores, while society continues corrupt or degenerate. There are armies of thieves and of reprobates, worse than heathen, within sound of the voice of the great lecturers of Paris. Officers of preventive and of correctional police have plenty of work to do in all large cities, both in Europe and this free land \i.e.y America]. In some respects the dangerous classes in large towns are worse than they were. They know more and are more excitable. Their knowledge, having nothing to do with rules of conduct and the meaning of life, being, in fact, such as a class of men without religion would gather, makes them craftier, more able to combine, more able to evade justice." t § 10. It appears, consequently, that to write the history of civilization without acknowledging Christianit}'^ is like writing the play of Hamlet with the Prince of Denmark left out. Civilization before Christianity in Greece, in Rome, in India, and in China, is not to be compared with civilization since Christianity has had its hand in it. And hence we argue that a system whose spirit has been prayer- ful in all ages, and which has made such deep impressions upon human progress, has secured in civilization itself a proof positive of the efficacy of prayer. The greatest * Cf. on this whole subject "Modern Missions and Culture; their Mutual Relations," by Dr. Gustav Warneck, which has been translated admirably by Dr. Thomas Smidi, of Edinburgh. t Cf. Woolsey's ** Religion of the Present and of the Future," p. 396. 1 76 Does God Answer Prayer ? contributors to the civilization of mankind have been the prayerful men and women who in season and out of season have toiled in the profoundest philanthropy for the elevation of their fellows. Our civilization would not be what it is to-day, but something altogether different and inferior, had not men cried to God for help in their labours, and been sustained in presence of apparent defeat and manifold difficulties until the blessings came. Civilization is itself a standing proof of what prayer can obtain. CHAPTER XIV. THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT A FINAL POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER 12 CHAPTER XIV. THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT A FINAL POSITIVE PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF PR A YER. § I. TN drawing the present section to a close, we are X anxious to adduce a final positive proof of the efficacy of prayer from the prevailing scientific spirit. Not- withstanding the hostility which characterizes some pos- sessors of this spirit to the practice of prayer, it may be shown that they are indebted for it to prayerful predecessors. For none but a superficial observer will imagine for a moment. that the scientific spirit is instinctive; it has been the growth of long centuries. In this matter, as in so many others, the scientific men of to-day are " the heirs of all the ages." § 2. What, then, do we mean by the modern scientific spirit ? We mean the devotion to the study of nature which only a love for nature and a belief in its rationality could produce. These two elements — a love for nature and a belief in its rationality — seem so simple, so natural, and so universal at present, that few ever think of investigating their origin and history. Now, so far from a love for nature as such being natural and universal, it has not characterized all races, just as it does not at present characterize all men. We meet multitudes who have no genuine love for nature ; 1 8o Does God Answer Prayer ? we may go to races inhabiting the very fairest scenes, and yet we have no reason to believe that they have any genuine love for nature. § 3. When, farther, we pass up the stream of history, and fasten upon the Greek civilization, we are warranted in believing that the Greeks were strangers to that love for nature which we deem essential to the scientific spirit. For by love for nature we mean something altogether different from physical enjoyment of nature. This the Greek doubtless possessed and expressed in his literature ; but the '' subtle sympathy with nature and her ways " he did not entertain. " The merely physical enjoyment," says Mr. Hebberd, '^ is sterile ; it is destructive of thought rather than creative. It is content with the passing moment, and does not seek to perpetuate itself in the forms of poetry and art. Nature, therefore, when it exerts only this sensuous influence upon a people, can never become the theme or the inspiration of any great intellectual labour. At the very best it can only furnish the background of the picture. Always some human or divine personality stands as the central and chief object of interest. This simple distinction seems often to be strangely overlooked. In this way many have been led to deny that the Hellenic genius was devoid of a true love for nature, and have laboriously compiled quotations in support of their opinion. But their proofs are always irrelevant to the issue. The passing allusion of a poet to some beauty of natural scenery attests nothing to the purpose. ' The Greek poet,' as Schiller has well said, 'is certainly in the highest degree correct, faithful, and circumstantial in his descriptions of nature ; but his heart has no more share in his words than if he was treating of a garment, a shield, or a suit of armour.' His description is merely incidental. He grasps only the outward and sen- The Fa? hire of the Greeks. i8i suous element, and never discerns that nature has an inner life as mysterious and suggestive as that of man." ''' § 4. In strict accordance with this, we find that there was an '' almost utter failure of the Greek in physical research." It will be said in refutation of this that Aristotle made a series of observations in natural history which appear even now marvellous. But " amid all the encyclo- paedic studies of the great Stagyrite, extending over so many different departments of physical research, no man can lay his hand upon a single discovery, or one permanent contribution, made to the wealth of science. In his own proper field Aristotle stands unrivalled and unapproachable. But his physical studies remain a true type of Greek em- piricism, and a lasting monument of its utter worthlessness when applied to the study of nature." t This has been justly attributed to the fact that Aristotle admitted no source of knowledge but sensation, and so was shut up to that bare enumeration of particulars and logical deduction from them which constituted all the inductive process he knew. His method was necessarily barren. § 5. And in strict accordance with what has been ad- duced, the only scientific advance made among the Greeks was by the schools of idealism. It was the school of Pythagoras which invented what poor arithmetic the Greeks possessed. To the same school was due the rudiments of geometry, while Plato invented the geometrical analysis. It was the Pythagoreans also who began the systematic study of botany, of medicine, and of acoustics. J § 6. Another tendency was needed to create that love for nature on which the scientific spirit depends. This * " Secret of Christianity," 7it supra, p. 134. t Ibid., p. 187. t Ibid., pp. 178—180. 1 82 Does God Aiv^wer Prayer? tendency was Oriental, and while it asserted itself for a season at Alexandria, it was introduced to Europe through the fathers and the schoolmen. It was the contribution, as Mr. Hebberd has conclusively shown, of the Catholic Age to human progress. In these Middle Ages which are now so decried there arose and was fostered the love for nature which is essential to the scientific spirit. " In the Middle Ages/' he says, " this sentiment gradually incorporated itself into the popular life ; it advanced in the exact degree that the old Pagan spirit vanished before the influences of Catholic Christianity. It has been remarked, for instance, by one profoundly versed in early Germanic literature, that very few traces of a sentiment for nature are to be found in the ^ Niebulungen ' or 'Gudrun,' while they abound in the chivalric poetry of the Minnesingers. Evidently this fact is inexplicable, if there is, as German patriotism is so ready to maintain, a characteristic bent of the Germanic mind towards the contemplation of nature. On the other hand, the apparent anomaly disappears in a moment in the light of the theory which we are now advancing. The ^ Niebulungen ' and the ^ Gudrun ' are rehcs from the wreck of heathen life, which had been handed down through the medium of popular tradition. But the poetry of the Minnesingers is indigenous to Catholic soil; with its strange blending of the religious and the military spirit it presents an admirable type of life in the Middle Ages. Here, then, as we might expect, we find the clearest manifestations of that love for nature which is so rarely exhibited in the more primitive * Niebulungen.' " * § 7. The growing love for nature fostered by the Church is seen also in the architecture and art of the Middle Ages. * "Secret of Christianity," pp. 136-7. The Love for Nature, 183 The comparison of a Gothic cathedral with a Greek temple will convince the observer that in the one case you have a stone embodiment of nature, while in the other yoM have the mathematical precision of human invention. The rise of landscape painting tells the same tale ; and the culmina- tion, so to speak, of the tendency appears in feudalism where a man's relation to a bit of land determines his position in society.* § 8. The more this love for nature is studied, the more easily it will be seen to be an element European progress owes to the Catholic Church. Of course a superficial thinker like Draper may declaim against all indebtedness to the Church of the Middle Ages in all moods and tenses ; but a deeper insight will lead us to admit that the love for nature which the scientific spirit requires was providen- tially conveyed and fostered by the Middle Age Church. f § 9. And along with this love for nature there came the conviction that harmony, symmetry, and unity pervaded it, if we could only reach it. Nature came to be regarded, to use the expression of Plotinus, as ''the sleeping Logos." The secrets of nature were eminently worth inquiring after and extracting. Doubtless such men as the alchemists did but little for the advancement of science as such ; yet their spirit was good, for nature had become their oracle. And then as we advance we find that the conviction steadily grows that nature is rational throughout its bounds, and is the embodiment in fad of what is logically deducible from /aw. In the substantiation of this scientific position the prayerful men, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and * " Secret of Christianity," pp. 139-42. t Interesting pictures of the influence of Christianity will be found in Kahnis' last work, "Der Gang der Kirche ' : his treatment of the ** Mittelalterliche Kirche '" is very suggestive. 184 Does God Answer Prayer? Faraday, have done as much at least as any of their prayer- less mates ; and it may be most justly argued that but for the Christian influences of the earlier as well as Reformation times the scientific spirit would not be what it is. The prayerful S3^stem, which has ever insisted on nature being an exposition of the thoughts of God, and which has in all ages given to science some of her ablest sons, cannot forego her claim to a considerable share in the development of the scientific spirit.* § 10. We admit that sometimes the Church has sinned against her own interests as well as against science in contending for mterpretations of Scripture as if the inter- pretations must be infallible ; and for these sins she has received severe chastisement in the alienation of minds she might by wiser policies have won. But at the same time we cannot but maintain that the scientific spirit and the science of to-day would not be the glorious heritage they are, but for a goodly band of prayerful predecessors, who ventured to commune with nature's God and studied nature amid the hallowed association. We maintain, in a word, that the scientific spirit is in appreciable measure a prayer-product too. § II. We have thus endeavoured not only to show how reasonable the theory of efficacious prayer is on those analogical grounds to which we are committed, but also to point out the verification which efficacious prayer has had and still has in the constitution of Holy Scripture, in the facts of our Lord's life, of the progress of Christianity, civilization, and the scientific spirit. We might with ampler limits and more abundant leisure have done * M. Naville has, in his " Le Pere Celeste," presented the religious men of science in contrast with tlie irreligious, with his usual power and piquancy. Prayer founded on Nahcre of Things. 185 more justice to the important tlieme than our present opportunities have allowed us to achieve ; but we have, we trust, succeeded in demonstrating that for our practice of prayer we have good ground in the nature and analogy of things. PART V. EPILOGUE. § I. T T only remains for us to sum up our argument and X apply it. Perhaps it can best be done in this way. If we had lived in Palestine in the time of Jesus Christ, and had prosecuted such an inquiry as the present one about the efficacy of prayer, we should have found a considerable section of the people prepared to maintain that God did not hear prayer and answer it as in the days of yore. To adopt the language of the prophet, these people imagined that the Lord's hand was shortened, so that it could not save, and His ear had grown heavy, so that it could not hear (Isa. lix. i). Their notion was that God in their day made no sign. Of course a series of unprecedented works were being wrought by Jesus Christ in a spirit of profound philan- thropy. But the Scribes and Pharisees had a theory which, they believed, accounted for the phenomena ; the wonders were all performed through the inspiration of Beelzebub, and had no connection, they felt certain, with God in heaven. However unreasonable this may seem to us, their position is perfectly intelligible. They assumed that they were themselves the best and wisest people of their day. They congratulated themselves even before God that they were not as other men are. They consequently concluded that if any were heard and answered by God it must be themselves. But, strange to say, they had been praying and plotting for political emancipation for generations; 190 Does God Answer Prayer? they had been wrestling earnestly for deliverance from the Roman power, but the emancipation had never come ; and this Jesus, who ought, they imagined, to have turned out a political Deliverer, had taken up the role of a Saviour from sin, of which these Pharisees fancied they were ^lot, in any great degree, guilty. In other words, because they, the best of men, had not got deliverance from Roman bondage in answer to their prayers, therefore God's ear had become heavy, and He could not hear. § 2. The prayers of others, as we have seen, were being answered. In particular, the prayers of the incomparable Philanthropist who moved among them were being an- swered daily. But what did the philanthropies of a Nazarene amount to, when compared with the emancipa- tion of their country from Roman bondage ? As long as God ignored the cry of the patriots, and gave no political relief, men, who imagined they needed no deeper deliver- ance, pronounced against the present efficacy of prayer. But no one imagines that their conclusion was a fair deduction from the facts. God might be the Answerer of proper prayer, while He gave no heed to the prayers of proud patriots for political relief. The inefficacy of the prayer of pride may be perfectly compatible with the efficacy of the prayer of the humble. § 3. And, in fact, this is the position taken up by the prophet in the passage already referred to, and which the best expositors believe applies to the times before and during the life of Christ. " Behold," says the prophet, "the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither His ear heavy, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear" (Isa. lix. i, 2). That is to say, sin is a separating The Prayer of Ambition Unanswered. 191 power ; it isolates men from God, so that He judicially denies answers to sin-prompted prayers. It will be found instructive to inquire into the character of these Pharisees who in Christ's time were denied answers to their prayers. We admit at once that they were moral men, in the ordinary sense of that term. They lived pure lives ; they kept the rites and ceremonies of their Church with scru- pulous care ; they enjoyed a great religious reputation ; they were patriotic, too. In the wars of the Maccabees, and in every subsequent revolt against the oppressor, it was the Pharisaic party who supplied the rank and file of the revolution. To the outward eye they were excellent, religious men. But it was on this account most easy for them to fall into the sin of self-satisfaction and self- righteousness. Because they were so respectable, they thanked God they were not as other men are, and sup- posed that such very respectable people could not but be accepted of Him. When, therefore, they came into His presence, it was to state their personal superiority to others, and to ask that it should be acknowledged in their deliverance from Rome. They desired political emancipa- tion for their country, that they might become what they believed they deserved to be — masters of the world ! They believed that CEesar deserved no such empire as he ruled over, but that they, as Pharisees, were the born leaders of mankind. Hence the cry of the patriots was selfish, and not philanthropic. It was simply that the tyranny of Rome should be exchanged for the tyranny of Pharisaism. § 4. Could God, upon any fixed moral principles, respond to such an ambitious prayer ? Is a moral Governor to be expected to hearken to the cry of ambitious and self-centred souls ? Is He not within His rights, and well within the bounds of true wisdom, when He ignores such petitions, and 192 Does God Answer Prayer? keeps such petitioners at a distance ? We respect and adore the mighty Being who professes to act upon the principle of '' knowing the proud afar off" (Psalm cxxxviii. 6) ; while, on the other hand, He hath respect unto the lowly ; yea, is prepared to dwell with him who is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones (Isa. Ivii. 15), This, we must admit, is moral government of the purest character. Pride, self-satisfaction, self-confidence, self-assertion, selfish am- bition — these are all sins which separate souls from God, and vitiate every prayer they prompt and inspire. The praj^er of the Pharisaic party for political deliverance, therefore, deserved no answer. It was not the cry of philanthropic souls, but of those who despised others, and, when they could, brought them into bondage. The tyranny of Caesar was not so severe as the tyranny of the Pharisees would have been, had God given them their desire, and made them masters of the world. Sin-prompted prayer deserves no answer. § 5. But there was another party in Christ's time who believed in the efficacy of prayer. At their head stood Jesus Himself. They were not self-centred, they were not self-satisfied. They realized that they could not be satisfied without God. They cried out for God, for the living God. And they found Him. He was not far from any one of them. The lowly hearts did not require to ascend into heaven, nor to descend into the earth, to find Him ; but they found Him nigh. His word was in their mouths and in their hearts ; they ceased to be strangers in nature, because they had learned to be at home with God. We do not affirm that the meek and lowly souls, who followed Him who was the meekest and the lowliest of them all, understood nature's laws as scientific men under- ''At Home'' in Nature, 193 stand them now; but they were ''at home" in nature. Jesus taught them that every sunrise was a token of the love of Him who thus appealed to the evil as well as to the good ; and that the former and the latter rain, which watered benignly the lands of the unjust as well as of the just, was meant to speak of Him who loved His enemies as well as His friends, and by His love would transfigure them. (Matt. v. 43-48.) Jesus taught them that nature is a parable of spiritual things, and, as its very name implies, is intended to give birth to thoughts about something better than itself.* In His parables Jesus gives us not analogies of the fancy, such as any poet can give to us, but analogies of the judgment; that is, analogies founded upon the very nature of things, and interpreting for us the meaning and the mystery of the world. In this way He taught His disciples to be " at home " in nature, and to accept of it as a message from the heart of a loving God, a Father in heaven. § 6. He also taught them how to regard their fellow- men. The proud Pharisee would tyrannise over his fellows. He did tyrannise in his treatment of ''publican and sinner." But the followers of Jesus were to aim at the unity of mankind. They were to conquer their fellow- men by love, and to unite all men under the one Father in heaven. The substance of Christ's teaching was the father- hood of God and the brotherhood of men, or, in poetic words, that " God hath made Mankind to be one mighty family, Himself our Father, and the world our home." However the followers of Jesus may have failed to take in fully the unifying purpose of the Christian system, this was * ''Nature," from natura, " something about to be born." ^3 194 Does God Answer Prayer? its essence — the reduction of mankind to a moral unity by the power of love. Hence the organic connection of man- kind, and the necessity of never allowing selfishness to break the unity of the spirit or the bond of peace. In other words, Jesus made His followers children of God, and in the maintenance of the child's spirit there lay the secret of the Father's will, which is love. Hence He taught them that the revelation of the Father's will was not for the wise and the prudent, but for the babes ; only the childlike can appreciate the purposes of the Father in their unifying sweep and magnificent simplicity of love. (Matt. xi. 25.) § 7. Now we have transported ourselves imaginatively into the distant past, that we may with less heat appreciate our own attitude to this question of the efficacy of prayer. The two parties in our Lord's time have their counterparts to-day. One party denies the efficacy of prayer, another party maintains it. Both may be simply stating their own experience. The one party believe their prayers have been answered; the other party have had, they believe, no answers. The question to be determined is. Which is in the proper moral attitude ? We know how delicate a matter it is to touch upon. But truth demands that we should not shirk it. The custom has been in dealing with objec- tors to give them credit for all the virtues under heaven. But we are compelled in such a discussion as the present to look more narrowly into moral distinctions, and to press hom^e the consideration of the inquirer's moral attitude. We look into the writings of those who object to the efficacy of prayer, and we have no difficulty in finding therein the same moral qualities which characterized the Pharisaic party. There is a self-confidence which no Pharisee could surpass; there is a contempt for others Sin separating us frovi God. 195 which affects no disguise; there is a limitation to their philanthropy which they cannot conceal. They do not attack the question in a spirit of self-abasement ; they will not make the prayer-experiment as they conduct their experiments in other directions ; because they do not get the answers they think they ought, they hastily condemn the whole practice. Whereas if they would only give prayer an honest trial, they would have such an expe- rimental demonstration of its efficacy as would effectuall}^ put all their doubt to rest. § 8. Perhaps a quotation or two will more adequately convey the idea. Speaking of the ''sincerity" which should characterise us in our relations to God, the late Professor T. H. Green says : '' By ' sincerity ' (eiXiKptVaa) here [/>., in I Cor. V. 7, 8] is to be understood, I think, perfect openness towards God ; that clearness of the soul in which nothing interferes with its penetration by the Divine sunlight. Given this openness on our part, Christ, the revealed God, will gradually find His way into our souls, not in word but in power. We must be clear from vice, clear from self- indulgence, clear from self-conceit. How imperfectly do we attain this clearness, yet how can we wonder, till we attain it, that we lack the witness of God ? ... It is STILL OUR SINS, AND NOTHING ELSE, THAT SEPARATE US FROM God. Philosophy and science, to those who seek not to talk of them but to know their power, do but render His clearness more clear, and the freedom of His service a more perfect freedom. His witness grows with time. In great books and great examples, in the gathering fulness ot spiritual utterance which we trace through the history ot literature, in the self-denying love which we have known from the' cradle, in the moralising influences of civil life, in the closer fellowship of the Christian societ}^, in the 196 Does God Answer Prayer? sacramental ordinances which represent that fellowship, in common worship, in the message of the preachers through which, amid diversity of stammering tongues, one spirit still speaks — here God's sunshine is shed abroad without us. If it does not reach within the heart, it is because the heart has a darkness of its own, some uncon- quered selfishness which prevents its relation to Him being one of ^ sincerity and truth.' " * § 9. Another quotation from the same quarter will per- haps be welcome. He says to the Oxford students : '' We are in the highway and mid-current of spiritual progress. Yet are we not ourselves standing still, or moving in a trivial round of intellectual luxuries ? Is not our heart shut against the voice that calls us out of ourselves, and busy with the idol of its own self-decoration ? How much of our real interest is going to the quest after truth and God, — how much to the attainment of skill in writing clever articles and saying 'good things,' which have no result but to make our brethren offend, and to surround ourselves with an atmosphere of irreverence and unreaHty over which God's Spirit broods in vain ? He that seeketh findeth what he seeks ; and if in reading and thinking we look merely for a testimony to our own cleverness, we shall find probably what we seek, but no higher witness. We know that egotism has to be outwardly suppressed if ordinary good fellowship is to be possible. Much more must it be mortified and raised again to an altered life if we would attain the fellowship of the Son, and with it the spirit of adoption and the truth which makes us free." f * "The Witness of God and Faith," two Lay Sermons by the late T. li. Green, M.A., LL.D., Fellow of Balliol College, and Whyte's Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Oxford, pp. 41-3. t Ibid., pp. 46-7. Nature s Message to the Pure in Heart. 197 § 10. It will thus appear that there is such a thing as intellectual self-indulgence, and that this is just as blinding in its effect as any other form of self-indulgence. The ''wise and prudent" cannot see the Father even in the face of Jesus Christ, much less in the face of Nature, and so miss the fellowship which childlike hearts enjoy. With them everything has *' faded into the light of common day," and nothing comes ''apparelled in celestial light." Their verdict will be against the efficacy of prayer so long as this intellectual pride and self-sufficiency continue. But let them only drop the intellectual conceit, and lo ! all nature, all history, all personal experience, will become instinct with God. Celestial splendour will once more light up life's landscape, and they wnll find themselves "at home" with God. The humihation of the spirit creates such a sense of God that nature and history and all experience become transfigured. The "pure heart" is the whole secret. If the inquirer has brought a heart to the inquiry with all its capacity for love, if he has allowed his heart to be purged from all the dross of self- conceit and self-sufficiency, he will have no difficulty in seeing, and in holding fellowship with, God. §11. "Nature," says a French writer, "does not hold the same language for all. The language is, for the most part, only the echo of the word which we hear in the depth of our own being. We see nature across our personal impressions — we lend to it the sentiments which animate ourselves. Entertain in presence of nature sentiments pure and delicate, and nature will say to you, ' I am divine, I am the child of God, listen to the song of love which I make to mount to Him.' Have, on the contrary, your soul filled with lusts {convoitises) and evil passions, and nature will no longer hold the same language for 198 Does God Answer Prayer? you ; she will be dangerous in your estimation, she will give increased intensity to the evil which is in you. The pleasures she aftbrds us are of the most elevated character, or they are inferior and sensual, just according as our heart is attached to things above or to things below. Nature does not leave us indifferent ; she is beautiful ! She is filled with so many harmonies. Under her aspects, whether severe or gracious, she moves so profoundly our soul. But — I repeat it — the spectacle of her beauties is corrupting or beneficent ; it raises us or abases us, accord- ing to the dispositions in which we find ourselves when we contemplate it. Who of us has not had more than once the experience ? Recall the hours of solitude and of medita- tion which you have passed in presence of nature, and tell me if these hours have not been sweet and blessed just in proportion as your heart has been well disposed ? When has nature unveiled her most intimate secrets to you ? When has she spoken to you of the presence and of the bounty of a Father in heaven ? When has she consoled and strengthened you ? Has it been when your heart was filled with sickly {fnalsaines) thoughts, or troubled with evil desires ? No, no ! but when it was pure. The soul ravaged by sensuality, by hatred, or by base ambitions, does not hear the voice of God in nature : this voice is stilled {converte) by passion. The temple is still there, but the God who inhabits it reveals there no longer His presence ; the heavens arc still there with their brilliant array [arniee), but they do not recount any longer the glory of the might}^ God, and the expanse no longer affords a knowledge of the work of His hands ; all the graces, all the splendours, all the lovely and magnificent {grandioses) harmonies of nature are there, but the unseen harps no longer produce an anthem of love and of adoration. There must be the calm, the calm The Prayerful Study of Nature. 199 of a pure heart, to understand nature. ' The soul agitated by passion sustains itself in solitude by devouring itself. But the more one struggles after personal purification, the more one has cultivated in his soul moral beauty, the more also is nature rich, profound, divinely eloquent for him who comes to seek from her consolation or calm' (Vinei)." * §12. In such a case it will be easily understood how communion with God is sustained. Nature is seen to be a Father's house, and in all her moods she speaks of God. Doubtless much of her meaning lies beyond the reach of the pure hearts, in the dim, mysterious region into which all, sooner or later, are compelled to come. But we are " at home " in nature the moment we have felt it to be a Father's revelation. We love it for His sake. Its laws are believed to be the dictates of profoundest love. They come to us with the associations of " the Holy of holies." Science becomes the handmaid of holiness, and helps us to worthier worship. Perplexities summon us to faith, and we leave our unsolved problems at the feet of God. § 13. The entertainment of such a view of nature can interfere with the pursuit of no science properly so called. So far from this, it secures that very love for nature which we have already seen to be an essential element of the scientific spirit. We enter in such a case prayerfully into the study of nature ; we expect communion with its Maker through it ; every new law discovered by mankind becomes a fresh revelation of the Divine wisdom, and is prized as a Divine thought; and under the hallowed associations the inspiration needful for the interpretation of nature is much more likely to be received. So far, therefore, from the prayerful attitude of pure hearts being in any way anta- gonistic to the mastery of nature, it is, when properly * Cf.Decoppet's Sermon on "LesCoeurs Purs." ''Sermons, "pp. 282-5 200 Does God Answer Prayer ? considered, helpful altogether. Every new law becomes an answer to the longing of our hearts, that we may the more fully understand God. § 14. Besides, such a view of nature of necessity controls our expectations about answers to prayer. If the order of nature be accepted as a revelation of the mind of God, if science be prized as an exposition of, at least, '' a part of His ways," then we will not set our hearts on miracle as an answer to our prayers, but we will prefer the answer which comes through recognized law. We will value that freedom from intellectual confusion which we believe the Almighty now secures for men, and we will set our hearts upon no break of the continuity, seeing we believe in His power to meet our needs through manipulation of the existing order. We can see a propriety in the restriction of the miraculous to the ages when no intellectual confusion could be pro- duced by it, since the idea of order had not yet impressed itself so powerfully on the mind of the race ; while in the ages of scientific progress the Almighty can show His power in meeting His people's needs without any inter- ruption of the universal order. But in such a case the arrangement is not meant to isolate men from God, but to increase our confidence in Him, and to widen the sphere of our fellowship. The order of nature should be an incentive to prayer instead of a hindrance.* The Divine possi- bilities, as we have already seen, are practically unlimited in manipulating the laws He has ordained. § 15. When, moreover, it is remembered that selfish, sin-prompted prayers deserve no answer, we perceive that prayer to be efficacious should be on the line of God's unselfish purposes. When we ask for " daily bread " in accordance with the direction of " the Lord's Prayer," it is * Cf. '* Expositor," vol. vi., pp. 36-50. The Limitation of Gods Pr onuses. 201 not with a view to self-indulgence, but in order to the efficient discharge of our duties as children of Him we have been taught to call " our Father which art in heaven." In such a case we may well believe that the laws of nature, which in His Fatherly wisdom He has ordained, will be so manipulated in His gracious providence that we shall be fed and thereby fitted for our work. We ask no miracle of provision, but are content to gather what He gives in the way He has ordained, and to be grateful to Him for it all. But temporal blessings, if asked for from selfish motives, to minister to ambition or indulgence, cannot be regarded by the suppliant as within the circle of the Divine pro- mises. Instead of taking up any such position, therefore, as that prayer for temporal mercies is profitless, we simply limit the range of the temporal blessing, and regard God as pledged only to supply our need that we may gratefully serve Him. § 16. In matters spiritual there is no practical limit to attainment through prayer. It should be remembered that promises are frequently misapplied. For example, the pro- mise, '' And whatsoever ye shall ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask anything in My name, I will do it," is often misapplied, as if it meant the utmost license of desire. But the context shows that it refers to philanthropic work. The believers in Jesus will be enabled not only to work such miracles of mercy as had characterised the Master, but also to do even greater works. These, it is admitted, mean the spiritual miracles which were performed at Pen- tecost, and which have had a distinct succession ever since. The regeneration of a soul is a greater work than the renewal of a body ; and so in the line of philanthropic effort, in seeking the salvation and the unity of mankind 202 Does God Answer Prayer? the disciples would be enabled by the Master to do mar- vellous and mighty things. Let them ask what they will in this direction, and He will do it for them. The promise is thus seen to be the property of philanthropists. There can be no limit to the desire of disinterested philanthropy. If men are only in downright earnest in benefiting their fellows, if they are ready for any self-denial and any sacrifice which the public weal requires, then they may come to the throne of grace and ask without stint from a loving Lord. §17. The purpose of the Father in heaven who over- shadows all is the creation of the Christian brotherhood. His laws of nature and of grace favour the magnificent design. In our prayers we fall in with the programme of love, and find that all things are co-operating towards this worthy end. The dispensations of sickness, or of sorrow, or of adversity, are all found to work together for good to those who have learned to love God. It thus appears that we may pass by resignation of spirit into an optimisniy which contrasts most powerfully with the pessimism of self-sufficient philosophy. The moment the soul is enabled to discern at the back of things a God who is Love, the entire system seems transfigured. " All things " are then found in some way to work together for good to those who love God ; the world, as constituted at present, is felt to be the very best world which, in our imperfect development, we could possess ; the system is temporary, but no better temporary system could be devised for the development of character. § 18. It is better that we should have our debates about the efficacy of prayer, than that it should be so evident as to admit of no question. If it were the matter of sensible demonstration, such as some doubtless demand, religion Conviction cannot be forced. 203 would become a matter of sense-perception and of sight, instead of a matter of trust. The whole tone of Christian life and feeling would deteriorate. As already shown, the selfish spirit would supplant disinterested devotion, and the " armies of the faith " would degenerate into mercenary mobs. It is better far, that we should have to reason out calmly the question of prayer, and draw our conclusion in the light of the evidence, than that we should have no discussion at all. The evidence, as we have tried to show, is sufficient to establish the conclusion that the propriety of prayer is according to the analogy of nature and the constitution of things. But it is not sufficient, and no possible evidence is sufficient, to force the conclusion upon unwilling minds. § 19. "Whence comes it," says a writer already quoted, '' that so many educated and intelligent men do not recog- nize in Christianity a Divine doctrine, and consequently an authority? Some, without doubt, can be arrested by the difficulties which faith presents to reason ; but the most part are not convinced because they do not wish to be, and because they do not examine even seriously the proofs of Christianity ; or because they arrest themselves not on the ground of what will persuade them, but upon the ground of what appears to them unacceptable. Faith is essentially a moral fact, a determination of the conscience, an elan of the heart. If it was not so, it would not be commanded as a duty, and Scripture would not declare to us that unbelief comes from hardness of heart. Truths of the moral and religious order are not to us matters of indifference ; they bind us, they lay us under obligation, they are intended {veulent) to rule our life. To accept them, we must consent to be governed by them ; without this preliminary consent, which a pure heart alone can give, one seeks all possible 204 Does God Answer Prayer ? reasons for rejecting them, and fails not in finding them. A carnal heart has every interest in making out the Bible to be only a tissue of fables or of legends, and Jesus Christ a poor sinner like you and me. Ideas depend more than we think upon inclinations, desires, and, in general, upon the moral state of the man. ' Intellect is venal ; it fur- nishes pretexts for all the lusts of the heart' {Luthardt). If nobody doubts mathematical truths, it is because nobody has any interest in doubting them. A daring philosopher of last century, Fichte, has even made this avowal : ' Our systems are, indeed, often but the history of our heart. All my convictions,' he adds, ' are determined by my character, and not by my reason. It is by bettering {ameliorant) one's heart that he arrives most surely at the true wisdom.' " * § 20. We have no hesitation, therefore, in asserting that if inquirers will only bring to the investigation lowly minds and hearts, sufficient has been adduced in the present treatise to warrant an affirmative response to the question, " Does God answer prayer ? " Let the experiment be only impartially made, let the precaution be taken of analysing faithfully the motive of our prayers, and we shall soon reach the conclusion that God, though He rejects and keeps at a distance the proud, giveth grace unto the humble. We offer in the Appendix some account of what has been already written on the subject,t and, in the belief that we have pointed out faithfully the true line of philosophical defence, we ask our readers to verify the argument for themselves. * Decoppet. ut supra, pp. 280- 1 , t Appendix. Note S. APPENDIX. APPENDIX. Note A (p. 13). The Impartiality of the Christian Spirit. We have noticed in the text the fact that professed agnostics cannot enter impartially upon the investigation of prayer. They are already prejudiced against its efficacy. This must colour all their inquity. And it may not be amiss here to formulate the fact, that so far from the Christian inquirer being prejudiced, he, above all others, must be impartial. For it is not indiiference which secures impartiality. So far from this, it may be easily shown that indifference incapacitates its possessor from judicial investigation. It is only when the ascertainment of truth is a matter of life and of death with us that we find ourselves unable to overlook any consideration bearing upon our subject. The Christian faith is a matter of life and of death with all believers ; we cannot, consequently, afford to ignore any objection against it. And it will be found, as a matter of experience, that Christian inquirers go more impartially into the discussion of vital questions than their opponents. As Scripture says, " Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" ; and freedom from prejudice and partiality is one of the gifts of the Spirit. The following quotations confirmatory of this contention will be welcome : — " Whatever else you may say of it, modern orthodoxy is no coward ! It has become used to the edge of the precipice, it has looked down into the depths, its ear is haunted with the sound of the cataracts ! It will look the facts in the face — the fact of sin, the fact of Divine law, the fact of condemnation 9.nd death. But orthodoxy does also what no science can do 2o8 Appendix, it takes these facts and holds them up before its clear, shining faith, that God is love. It takes these facts, awful though they are, and brings them to Jesus, and leaves them at the foot of the cross. Orthodoxy sees the chasms, and the preci- pices, and the wild cataracts ; but it sees also, shed abroad over all, the light of the love of God ; it would behold them no more under any cloud of its own foolish imaginations, or heavy, overshadowing traditions; it would see them in the sunlight of the Gospel, in the joy of its faith in the perfect goodness of the perfect God. And so, reserving many ques- tions, as Erasmus once said they should be reserved, not until the next general council, but until that hour when we shall stand face to face with God, our theology has patience, and can wait. Having rested as a child upon the bosom of the infinite Fatherhood of God, our faith is content if it can feel close to its own trembling heart the beatings of that heart which is ever true and unchangeable in its goodness, even though it may be darkness and night round about it as it lies upon the bosom of God." — Rev. Dr. Newman Smyth, in his "Orthodox Theology of To-Day." " Now, there is one remark to be made at the outset which seems to deserve particular consideration. It is that, among those who have conducted this great controversy, Christian writers alone have approached the subject from an impartial point of view. A different impression no doubt prevails, and it is a common reproach against us that we enter on the dis- cussion with a special interest in favour of the old faith. Of course we do ; and it would be a shame to us if we did not. We have the same interest in believing in the truth of the Christian creed that all men have for believing in the truth of any cause with which the civilization they inherit is indissolubly bound up, for which those whom they love and admire best in the world have shed their blood, and with which the deepest and purest and most elevating of their feelings are united. It would be a bitter thing, no doubt, and bitter to others than Christians, — it would be a shock to human nature, and would shake our faith in the very trustworthiness of our faculties, — to have to recognize that the self-sacrifice of Christian martyrs Appendix. 209 and the devoted lives of Christian saints, inseparably united as they are, in a manner presented by no other religion, with all that is noblest and most progressive in history, with the highest hopes of the human race even for this world ; to have to recognize, I say, that all this was founded upon a series of illusions. But, nevertheless, none have the right to say of us, any more than they have a right to presume respecting any other men, that we are disqualified by our prejudices from recognizing plain facts. It is facts that we want, and nothing else. Our creed, as has already been said, is a creed of facts; and every light that can be thrown on the evidence for them is welcome to us. On the other hand, we are justified in saying of the principal writers among our antagonists— for they say it of themselves— that they are so far from entering on the consideration of the subject impartially, that they actually prejudge the very question in dispute. They say, and it is the cardinal and ever-recurring principle of their objections, that miracles and supernatural facts cannot have happened ; and that this consideration, taken alone, renders it necessary to treat the narratives of the Gospels as legendary. As illustra- tions of this attitude of mind, it may be sufficient to mention three leading writers : Strauss, the notorious author of the mythical theory of the Gospels ; Baur, the distinguished leader of the Tubingen school; and, lastly, M. Renan. Strauss, in his final work on this subject, reiterated that the main difficulty in accepting the narratives of the Gospels as historical is that they assume the existence of a personality in our Lord, and recognize the operation of powers in the course of His life, to which we have no parallel in any other history.* Of course we have not, that is the very Christian contention ; but to assume that because no such personality and no such deeds are recorded in any other history, therefore they could not have occurred in the case of our Lord, is to beg the whole question at issue ; it is to say that no amount of evidence to the narratives of the Gospels would be of any value. Or, as Strauss puts it in another form, 'that which cannot happen * "Das Leben Jesu fiir das Deutsche Volk bearbeitet." Third Edition, 1876, s. 145. 14 2IO Appendix, did not happen ' ; * and accordingly the narratives of the Gospels must be explained away by some device or other. The case is practically the same with Baur; while sympa- thizing with Strauss, he objected to him that he had not sufiftciently investigated the authenticity and date of the Gos- pels. Strauss laid the stress of the argument on the inherent incredibility of the history^ Baur, on the other hand, endea- voured to show that the Gospels were of very late origin, and consequently could not be regarded as valid testimony to the occurrence of the facts. But, after all, the decisive argument, even for him, is that the contents of the Gospels are miraculous and impossible. In his own words, ' The cardinal argument for the later origin of our Gospels remains always this : that each of them for itself, and still more all of them together, relate so much in the life of Jesus in a manner in which in reality it is impossible for it to have happened. 't In other words, Baur, a man of immense learning and originality, starts on this momentous inquiry with the prejudgment that the narratives of the Gospel are impossible ; and naturally he is at no loss to invent theories — most of which, however, have since been surrendered by his successors — as to their compo- sition. Lastly, as to M. Renan, it is only necessary to quote one sentence from the preface to the thirteenth edition of his ' Life of Jesus,' in which his work assumed its final form. 'At the foundation,' he says, 'of every discussion of similar matters lies the question of the supernatural. If miracles and the inspiration of certain books are a reahty, my method is detest- able. If, on the other hand, miracles and the inspiration of books are beliefs destitute of reality, my method is a good one. But the question of the supernatural is decided for us with a complete certainty by this single reason: that there is no room for believing in a thing of which the world does not offer any experimental trace.' Accordingly he, too, is obliged to invent a theory of his own to account for the narratives of the Gospels, * See also "Das Leben Jesu kaitisch bearbcitct." Fourth Edition, § i6 ; Criterions of what is unhistorical in the evangelical narrative. J " Kritische Untersuchungen liber die Kanonischen Evangelien," 1847, s. 530. Appendix. 2 1 1 on the supposition of their being legendary. Neither of these well-known writers, in other words, approaches the subject with an open mind. The main question — the question of the trustworthiness of the authors of the Gospels — is settled in advance, not by reference to testimony or criticism, but by an dpyiori supposition; they combine in saying, with Strauss, * These things cannot have happened, therefore they did not happen.* The Christian writer, on the other hand, says, ' I am not prepared to say beforehand what may or may not have happened ; what is possible, and what is impossible. I want simply to know what did happen ; and I am prepared to accept good evidence on the subject, however surprising the events to which it bears testimony.' In view of these facts, which are proclaimed in the very face of all the chief negative argu- ments on this subject, are we not justified in saying that the impartiality is on our side, the prejudice and the assumptions on the other ? Of course, if we could be sure that a miracle was inconceivable, the method of rationalistic writers would, as M. Renan says, be justified. But whilst it can be said, in the words of Professor Huxley in his book on Hume, that * No event is too extraordinary to be possible ; and therefore, if by the term miracle we mean only extremely wonderful events, there can be no just grounds for denying the possibility of their occurrence,' * no such assumption will be accepted by thought- ful men. We are not accustomed to decide these matters upon abstract theories of possibilities and impossibilities. We want simply to know what is the evidence on the subject ; and that has been, and is still, the attitude of all English theologians of distinction." — Rev. Dr. Wace, in his last work, "The Gospel and its Witnesses," pp. 9-14. Note B (p. 44). The Charge of Anthropomorphism. " There seems, in fact, to lurk an extraordinary sophism in the offence which is taken at so-called anthropomorphism. Men * Page 134. 2 12 Appendix, observe the operation of the inanimate forces of nature, and deduce from them the methods of God's operation. There, they will say, you observe the course of His action ; and you notice its absolute regularity, and the absence of any in- dication that we can detect of its disturbance by personal action and will. But the moment the moralist, or the theologian, points to another sphere of nature,— that of human nature, which is nature still, — and argues from it in a similar manner, regarding it as a revelation of part, at all events, of God's method of action, we are denounced as anthropomorphic. Be it so. But what is the scientific conception but — if I may be allowed to coin the word — physico-morphism ? They see the likeness and reflection of God in nature; we see the image and reflection of God in man ; and why not the one as well as the other } The corruption of our moral nature creates, indeed, a gulf between us and Him. But considered from the point of view of a physical philosopher, man is not only a part of nature, but the highest and most completely developed part. By all means let us learn all that natural philosophers can tell us of the Divine nature and methods and power from the inanimate and irrational creation ; but let them not refuse to take into account what we can tell them, or rather what their own hearts can tell them, respecting God's nature. His power, and the method of His action, as exhibited in the mind and will of man. You discern in nature an order which, in some sense, is immutable ; and if you admit a Divine mind at all, you attribute a similar order, and a similar immutability, to that mind. Then let us argue in the same way from our own nature ; and if we see the very noblest expressions of human nature in our love, our hatred, our wrath, our mercy, our repentance, our forgiveness, let us acknowledge, on the same principle, that these also are a reflex, however faint, of Divine perfections, and let us not shrink from recognizing, in the language of the Scriptures, that the Creator of those emotions loves and hates, and is wrathful and merciful, and repents and'' forgives. And if we hold in our hands a vast complexity of agencies, human, animal, physical, chemical, which come as we bid them come, and go as we bid them go, in accordance, not with any immutable order of external nature, but in Appendix. 2 1 3 obedience to our intellectual designs and moral intentions, to fulfil our love or our enmity, our justice or our mercy, with what reason can we doubt that He, too, — but with a complete- ness, an invisibleness, a continuousness, a supremacy, of which we have no conception, — is controlling every physical element, and every circumstance which surrounds us ? Argue from nature, exclusive of man, and you may acquiesce in the hard mechanical views which alone it suggests to you. Argue from nature with man, and man's actions, and man's will, included within it, and you will agree with Luther that the centurion (Matt. viii. 5-10) was a great Doctor of Divinity." — Rev. Dr. Wace, tit supi'a, pp. 103-105. Note C (p. 53). The Five Senses of "Law" according to the Duke OF Argyll. " There are at least five senses in which Law is habitually used, and these must be carefully distinguished : — " First, We have Law as applied simply to an observed order of facts. "Secondly, To that order as involving the action of some force or forces, of which nothing may be known. " Thirdly, As applied to individual forces the measure of whose operation has been more or less defined or ascertained. " Fourthl}^ As applied to those combinations offeree which have reference to the fulfilment of purpose, or the discharge of function. " Fifthly, As applied to the abstract conceptions of the mind — not corresponding with any actual phenomena, but deduced therefrom as axioms of thought necessary to our understanding of them. Law, in this sense, is a reduction of the phenomena, not merely to an order of facts, but to an order of thought. These great leading significations of the word Law all circle round the three great questions which science asks of nature, the what, the how, and the why : — "(i) What are the facts in their established order ? 2 1 4 Appendix. "(2) How — that is, from what physical causes — does that order come to be ? "(3) Why have these causes been so combined? What relation do they bear to purpose, to the fulfilment of intention, to the discharge of function ? " — Duke of Argj^U's "Reign of Law," p. 64, etc. Note D (p. 74). Free-Will. "Any objections against the daily moral interposition of a Divine will in the course of nature, on the ground of the immutability of physical laws and of their action, is equally, as is now candidly confessed, an argument against the inde- pendent personal action of a human will. Man's body, in all its functions, is a part of the whole sum of nature. It enters the sphere in which all the laws of physical nature work. It is subject to the law of the conservation of force, and to ever}'' other ph3^sical consideration by which personal Divine will is supposed to be excluded. And yet, in spite of this, and side by side with it, we are all acting on each other by moral forces ; our physical actions are prompted by moral motives, by intellectual designs, by determinations of will. But this, it is sometimes replied, is an illusion. You seem to have a free will : but you have not ; you are a link in the chain of causation, and your apparent morality is a physical product. For the purposes of such an argument as the present this is a mere dispute about words. Let your will, your love, j'our intellect be what you please. All the theologian is concerned to maintain is that the Divine will, the Divine love, the Divine wisdom can act, and does act, in a similar manner ; and that if we say to one subordinate agent, from moral motives, and for moral purposes. Go, and it goeth, and to another, Come, and it cometh, and to our ser\'ants, Do this, and they do it, our Creator, the source and eternal strength of all these powers, is perpetually employing in a similar manner, and for similar motives, — albeit with an exaltation of their character Appendix. 2 1 5 far beyond our conceptions,— the innumerable agencies which are under His command." — Rev. Dr. Wace, lit supj-a , pp. 105-6. Note E (p. 105). Physical Causes Compatible with Chaos just as WELL AS with A COSMOS. The scientific men, who fancy that physical causes are altogether sufficient to account for the cosmos, have over- looked the fact that such causes are in themselves just as compatible with phenomenal chaos as with the arrangement and order which happily prevail. Consequently something beyond the physical and mechanical is required to account for the result. The following quotation is suggestive : — " I would remark with great respect, and knowing that the liability is shared by other departments of knowledge as well, that physical science is capable — if I may dare to say such a thing — of breeding crotchets. A curious attitude of opposition to common sense is, I say, noticeable as an occasional feature of the scientific mind, rising up at sudden turns. It is a phenomenon to be attended to. We speak of poetry, romance, religious enthusiasm generating strange fancies ; but nothing can exceed the odd and unaccountable convictions which science sometimes takes up. Can there, for instance, be found a more curious quarrel with common sense than that antipathy which some scientific schools, especially the French school, entertain to the idea of design in nature, so thrust upon us by nature ? The vindication of physical causes can hardly be considered as more than a decent disguise for this grotesque prejudice of science ; because it is so obvious that physical causes can produce a chaos just as much as they can produce a harmony or system ; that they are common to arrangement and disorder, and therefore cannot in themselves account for arrangement." — The late Canon Mozley in his " Lectures and other Theological Papers," pp. 22-3. 2 1 6 Appendix, Note F (p. 122). Dialogue, and not Soliloquy, is Prayer. " Prayer is, in its highest form, literally the ' communion' of the Divine and human spirit ; and for communion to exist, it must needs be that two concomitant wills be exerted — the will of him who speaks, and that of him who listens, of him who asks, and him who grants ; and again, in converse shape, of him who inspires, and him who reflects inspiration, him who bestows grace, and him who receives it. To forget this truth, and speak, on the one hand, as if religious ' exercises ' (as they are called) were all our own self-acting, self-reflecting spiritual gymnastics, or, on the other hand, to expect that God will bestow His best gifts on our souls without our being at the pains to ask for them, and will always open for us a door at which we never knock, — is, in either case, a grievous mistake. No man can pray believing prayer to be merely self-acting ; and, albeit God in His mercy does often seek us when we wander from Him, yet the very Heaven-sent impulse then given seems always to be an impulse to ;pr ay, to return to our Father's house, and say, 'I have sinned.' If we neglect such inspirations, and draw no nigher to God because of them, He does nothing more. He does not force us into His arms, as He forces the planets round the sun. I have just said that no man can pray believing prayer to be merely self-acting. It is needful to believe that we can move another will than our own by our supplications, before it is possible to put forth the earnest appeal of real prayer. It will be replied, perhaps, that this statement is untrue ; and that solemn, premeditated acts of resolution and aspiration are properl}^ prayers ; even when they who use them ' Bow alone Each l:)efore the judgment throne Of his own aweless soul ' ; or of an image of Buddha, or a picture of Clotilde de Vaux. But it seems to me that to give such emotions and resolutions the name of prayers, is simply to confound two different things, just as it would be to confound a soliloquy with a dialogue or Appendix, 2 1 7 address. The soliloquy may, indeed, run on the same topic as the address, and may readily be made to borrow its forms ; but it is not the same thing, and to give it the same name is merely to cheat ourselves by misuse of words. To pray, as we understand the word, is to address a person, human or Divine, who is understood by him who prays actually to exist and to hear his address. To extemporize before an abstraction, consciotisly recognized as such, is not to pray. Even to address, after the Buddhist fashion, a being who, albeit he once lived upon earth, is now supposed to be unconscious of the act of his worshipper, is so far different from what we Westerns mean by 'prayer,' that the intelligent races who maintain such a practice see no absurdity in constructing their self-acting windmills with prayers written on their sails, to perform the barren ceremony in their stead. If there be no conscious person to hear prayer, there may just as well be no conscious person to pray. A machine will answer all the purposes of the case." — Frances Power Cobbe in her Preface to "Alone to the Alone," pp. 19-21. Note G (p. 127). God most Blessed for Ever. " God as love is blessed for ever in the communion of His own triune Being. God is not revealed to us as a blank unit, but as a living unity, possessing Divine society in Himself, and morally and spiritually complete in His own manifoldness of being. The creation, thus, is in no sense necessar}^ to the perfectness of the triune God over all blessed for ever." — Rev. Dr. Newman Smyth in his " Orthodox Theology of To-day." Note H (p. 137). The Hospital Test of the Efficacy of Prayer. The following notes written at the time will be found to deal more fully with this subject than was possible in the text : — In a letter which Professor Tyndall received from a friend 2 1 8 Appendix. and communicated to the Cojitemp07-ary Review (Jul}' 1872), it is suggested that the efficacy of prayer may be put to an experimental test. It is believed by both that "quantitative precision" may be conferred "on the action of the Super- natural in Nature," but whether this be negative or positive must depend upon the statistical results. The method sug- gested is the following. Out of a vast number of legitimate objects contemplated in prayer, that of the cure of disease and prevention of death is selected. "There appears," says the Professor's anonymous correspondent, "to be one source from a study of which the absolute calculable value of prayer (I speak with the utmost reverence) can almost certainly be ascertained. I mean its influence in affecting the course of a malady, or in averting the fatal termination." Thereupon the writer proceeds to divide the prayers offered on behalf of the sick into general and special, the former contemplating in a general, "wholesale" way the multitude of sick that lie in helplessness throughout the world ; the latter entering into the particular cases known to the petitioner, and dealing with the matter in detail. It is assumed that the latter must of necessity be more efficacious. He then continues : — " For the purpose of our inquiry I do not propose to ask that one single child of man should be deprived of his par- ticipation in all that belongs to him of this vast influence. But I ask that one single ward or hospital, under the care of first-rate physicians and surgeons, containing certain numbers of patients afflicted with those diseases which have been best studied, and of which the mortality rates are best known, whether the diseases are those which are treated by medical or surgical remedies, should be, during a period of not less, say, than three or five years, made the object of special prayer by the whole body of the faithful, and that at the end of that time the mortality rates should be compared with the past rates, and also with that of other leading hospitals, similarly well managed, during the same period. Granting that time is given, and numbers are sufficiently large so as to ensure a minimum of error from accidental disturbing causes, the experiment will be exhaustive and complete. "I might have proposed to treat two sides of the same Appendix. 219 hospital, managed by the same men — one side to be the object of special prayer, the other to be exempted from all prayer. It would have been the most rigidly logical and philosophic method. But I shrink from depriving any of — I had almost said — his natural inheritance in the prayers of Christendom. Practically, too, it would have been impossible ; the unprayed- for ward would have attracted the prayers of believers as surely as the lofty tower attracts electric fluid. The experi- ment would be frustrated. But the opposite character of my proposal will commend it to those who are naturally the most interested in its success — those, namely, who conscientiously and devoutly believe in the efficacy against disease and death of special prayer. I open a field for the exercise of their devotion. I offer an occasion of demonstrating to the faith- less an imperishable record of the real power of prayer." Now it may be observed at the outset that one of the first principles in prayer, as accepted by believers, is that we do not expect to be heard for our much sjiea^in^ {Ma.tt. vi. 7), and consequently the committal to the Infinite Father of the sickness of humanity by a truly sympathetic soul ma)^ cover so completely every case as altogether to render nugator}- such a proposed demonstration as this. Unless, therefore, the writer can insulate a ward from the S3^mpathies of the faithful, and such he cannot do, then the conditions needful for his experiment altogether fail. But, it may be said, if the quantity of prayer be no neces- sary element in securing the answer, might not the faithful be appealed to on public grounds to insulate their sympathies according to the necessities of the experiment ? To this we reply that Christian men dare assume no such presumptuous position, which would be yielding to the world's demand for "a sign from Heaven," when neither the example of Christ nor any promise of the Word warrants such obedience. Besides, the sacrifice of sympathy could have no adequate result. The writer speaks in a magnanimous spirit of " offering an occasion of demonstrating to the faithless an imperishable record of the real power of prayer." If he desires *' an imperishable record of the real power of pra)'er," we refer him to the eleventh of Hebrews ; but he manifestly 2 20 Appendix. deceives himself if he supposes that the demonstration which he is anxious to secure would, if successful, be anything more to his successors than this sacred induction is to us. Five years of experiment, were the conditions possible, would not satisfy the experience of our children ; but he would require, \i ;prayer is to be demonstrated to the senses, to have the ward taken in perpetuity, and the gate of the supernatural always open. That is to say, a perpetual sacrifice must be provided to secure a perpetual demonstration for men who, under the idea that they illustrate mental strength thereby, take up the position of Thomas, and declare that " Except I see, I will not believe." " If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Must we, then, if this effort to reintroduce miracle can only prove abortive, give up the possibility of proving the efficacy of prayer ? By no means ; and in this belief we proceed to establish two points upon evidence that should satisfy, we humbly conceive, every impartial mind, and which will be at least a contribution to this controversy on prayer. I. The j^e7'manence of the laws of Nature offers no valid objection to the efficacy of ;prayer even for sensible blessings. Now, in forming a proper conception of the Divine relations to Nature, it is needful to clear the ground of every notion that is unreasonable or superstitious. In adopting this course we are following no less distinguished a guide than Dr. Tyndall himself. In his paper, entitled "Thoughts on Prayer and Natural Law," he, with his usual clearness and beauty, expatiates upon the superstitions of savage life which refer natural phenomena to personal agency, and he very propcrl}' states that careful observation of nature destroys those super- stitions. But what we are anxious to bring out is that he carries his inference altogether beyond his premises when he eliminates personal volition from the economy of nature, and insinuates that God's volitional relations to nature have ceased. These are his words : — "Observation tends to chasten the emotions and to check those structural efforts of the intellect which have emotion for their base. One by one natural phenomena have been asso- Appendix. 221 ciated with their proximate causes ; and the idea of direct personal voHtion mixing itself in the economy of nature is retreating more and more," * Again he says, in describing what is meant by the conserva- tion of energy : — "The Proteus changes, but he is ever the same; and his changes in nature, supposing no miracle to supervene, are the expression, not of spontaneit3% but oi physical necessity y^ And yet again he says : — " The principle referred to teaches us that the Italian wind, gliding over the crest of the Matterhorn, is as firmly ruled as the earth in its orbital revolution round the sun ; and that the fall of its vapour into clouds is exactly as much a matter of necessity as the return of the seasons. The dispersion, there- fore, of the slightest mist by the special volition of the Eternal would be as much a miracle as the rolling of the Rhone over the Grimsel precipices and down Haslithal to Brientz." % Now what it is necessary here to determine is what Dr. Tyndall means by excluding " personal volition " and " spon- taneity " in the first two quotations from the procession of Nature, while in the last he only excludes " the special volition of the Eternal." Does he admit the ^-^/^^r^?/ volition of the Eternal in the problem ? for if he do not, then it seems to us that ''special volition " is, if not tautological, at least misleading. But assuming that Dr. Tyndall' s position is that the Divine volition, in an unmiraculous age like ours, is no element in the problem of Nature, and that, as Mr. Wallace in his "Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection" puts it, the world would not come to chaos if left to law alone (p. 281), on what ground does this elimination of the Deity from His handiwork take place ? This, we take leave to say, is the weak point of the science of our time, for it is all owing to what we proceed to show is an inadequate notion of the Divine greatness. There is a crude idea lying in our hearts that one charac- teristic of greatness is indifference to details. Because we * "Fragments of Science," Sixth Edition, vol. ii., p. i. + Page 4. X Page 5- 2 2 2 Appendix, see men with largeness of soul often so occupied with thoughts and principles as to neglect the details of daily life, attentive only to the pounds and contemptuous towards the pence of life, we in our superficiality conclude that the great God is in this respect such an one as ourselves. What is the foundation of the objection to the Gospel in view of the inconceivable greatness of the universe ? It is really because the objectors imagine it derogatory to greatness to be supposed to have lavished such attention and volition upon "our little sand- grain of an earth." To us it has been very painful to find Dr. Tyndall, in his "Fragments of Science" (vol. ii., pp. 37-38), reproducing this objection, and allowing his usual penetration to desert him. The truth is all the other way. Real greatness is micro- scopic as well as telescopic ; it can lavish attention upon the minutest details as well as upon the mightiest principles. When Mr. Wallace, under the impression that his is the higher conception of Deity, affirms, " I cannot beheve that there is in it [the world] no inherent power of developing beauty or variety, and that the direct action of the Deity is required to produce each spot or streak on every insect, each detail of structure in every one of the million of organisms that live or have lived on the earth," we reply that so great is God that He can attend to each detail of His universe and carry it out, down to the spotting and streaking of the insect, as well as guide " His hunting-dogs over the zenith in their leash of sidereal fire." Ours is the worthier, the higher, the grander conception, which believes God to count the very hairs of our head and "cater for the sparrows," and be a Party to the minutest as well as mightiest of those lawful works-that are being transacted in the universe. As Hagen- bach says of Herder, so may we, with the proper modification, say of our God, "This faithfulness to one's calling, and this activity of a great man, in apparently small affairs, is the test of real greatness of mind." * So far, therefore, from accepting of this current elimination of the Divine will from Nature, upon which science insists, we * "German Rationalism," p. 172. Appendix. 223 repudiate it as based upon a lo\ver conception of God than Christianity gives. Dr. Tyndall may imagine that he occu- pies the higher ground when he dissociates " the Italian wind ghding over the crest of the Matterhorn " from the volition of the Eternal, but we fearlessly assert that as we mused on more than one occasion round that mighty mountain's base, and blessed the Light-giver for the cloudless sunshine in which the Pennine Alps were bathed, we were as true to science as he, and more respectful to our God. Nay more, we venture to assert that our conception is the more reason- able of the two, and that quite unconsciously our scientific friends are fostering a superstition. It is reasonable to believe in a first cause; it is, as we have shown, a more worthy conception of that first cause to believe in His atten- tion to details than to suppose that He relegates them to laws with inherent and independent energies — to insist, notwith- standing these considerations, upon regarding God as " the unknown and unknowable," and to worship at the altar in Athens, notwithstanding the natural theology of St. Paul, is, it appears to us, nothing but scientific su;perstition. Starting, then, with this impregnable position that Nature is the expression of a Divine will, the laws of Nature are consequently the outcome of the will of God. A personal God is behind this Nature, and in her laws is speaking to His children. But, then, are not the laws of Nature permanent in character, and must we not consequently conclude that if they express the will of the Law-giver, that will has been fixed and is changeless ? In other words, has not God expressed His will once and for ever, and taken up an immutable position in His universe ? Now this looks exceedingly specious until it is analysed. If the laws of Nature are changeless, if permanence is to be assigned to all of them without excep- tion, then God has parted with His freedom, and become a slave in His own creation. Now we are prepared to admit the permanence of the physical laws of Nature, we shall go as far as Dr. Huxley or Dr. Tyndall, or any of the scientific giants of our age, demand in view of their inductions, but we at the same time recognize " freedom of the will " as also a law of Nature; that is, an element in the constitution of the 2 24 Appendix. universe, without which the universe could not exist, and therein we recognize the soft spot, the oasis, in the wide wilderness of physical law. It is perfectly useless for scientific men to blink the signi- ficance of the "freedom of the will" as it enters into the order of Nature. We demand even more than the dry state- ment of Dr. Huxley in his celebrated essay on " The Physical Basis of Life," that " our volition counts for something as a condition of the course of events " * — more even than Ur. Tyndall gives us when he says, " As regards direct action upon natural phenomena, man's will is confessedly powerless, but it is the trigger which, by its own free action, liberates the Divine power." f We demand that scientific men shall recognize in " freedom of the will " a law of Nature in all its ranges from the minutest movements of animal life up to the most pathetic appeals of man. To speak of volition counting "something," and to compare it to a "trigger" liberating the Divine power, is certainly not to overstate its importance. The fact is, that the force of gravitation, of heat, of light — in a word, of any of the so-called laws of Nature, dwindles into insignificance before this great law of animal life, the "freedom of the will." We know something of the frantic effort that Comte and his school have made to ignore this freedom, and, that there is a disposition even in our scientific men, who repudiate positivism most heartily, to ignore, or at least undervalue it, need not be denied. Of course the admission of this freedom renders hopeless that dream of ;previsioii which science has so fondly indulged, and indeed that dream may be dismissed until the creature-will is led up to unison with the Divine. J But as observers in nature we dare not ignore this great law of animal life, the freedom of the will. Let us observe how it enters into the domain of permanent law and acts like a sovereign there. We are no chained * " Lay Sermons, " p. 159. t "Fragments of Science," vol. ii., p. 12. X Cf. "La Philosophie de La Liberie," par Ch. Secrctan, vol. i., p. XX., etc. Appendix. 225 slaves to the chariot wheels of nature ; we can lay our living hand on these revolving wheels of fate and make them do our bidding. Even Comte had to own that there are such things as voluntary modifications within this gigantic system of laws, and he argued against the Divine existence because such things were allowed. He thought of a God who would brook no fellow-workers in His house nor any self-willed children. But it is with the fact of freedom we are dealing now, and it is undeniable that AVILL becomes the charioteer, under whom are yoked the plunging horses of LAW, and he can guide them round the path of safety, or whip them over the wall into chaos and black night. But this is not all. One will can modify another will as well as modify law. Not only can a bird modify the result of the law of gravitation when she wills to take her flight in the midst of heaven, but she can modify the conditions of her offspring, responding to the cry of the young ones for food and heat, hearing and answering prayer. A strong man can not only lift a stone and thus modify the result of the law of gravitation, but he can also lift a child, and thus hear and answer pra3^er. And all through the realm of animal life, from its minutest movement up to the appeals of man, we have prayer uttered and prayer answered, notwithstanding that these beings tenant the home of changeless law. This realm of analogy will be found replete with illustration of the existence of pra)^er in nature. Not only so, but one will may resist another, as well as modify it, in strict accordance with the permanence of natural law. Every man is conscious of the power to take his own course in spite of man, of devil, and, let us reverently say it, in spite of God. Freedom of the will is a sovereign attribute, and carries its dangers with it as every sovereignty is found to do. Now we argue if freedom is thus the prerogative of the creature, if we, with our limited knowledge of nature and of law, can, notwithstanding, modify results amazingly, if we can transform continents, make wildernesses gardens, floor and carpet the ocean with magnificent fleets, and within certain limits (and these by no means narrow) do all our pleasure, 15 2 26 Appendix. shall we deny the prerogative to Him who is the Author of nature, in whom nature exists, who is never out of her domain, but the omnipresent Worker and Witness ? Are His hands to be tied and the children's to be free ? Is the permanence of laws, when taken individually, and which admit in combination of endless modification, as the Duke of Argyll has shown,* to hinder Him from accomplishing all His pleasure in the sensible sphere ? If a pigeon -breeder can produce in a given time, as Mr. Darwin tells us, almost any kind of feather or crop you prescribe, while the laws of nature remain constant, shall an analogous power of modification be denied to the Supreme ? And yet again, if one mind can mould another according almost to its pleasure, if one creature-will can modify another marvellously, if one master-will can rule "the fierce demo- cracy" and manipulate the multitude according almost to his sovereign pleasure, shall we deny to Him who has all hearts in His hand, and who knows our nature better than we do ourselves, the power of manipulating these creature-wills with a view to a certain definite result ? Reason and analogy cry out against it. Besides, when we consider that God, who alone of all existences is xwfiUl possession of the facts and laws of nature, has consequently at command the elements necessary for scientific prevision, and sees the end of all these variable as well as constant forces from the beginning, is it unreasonable to suppose that His purpose and plan embraced man's pra)^er, nay more, man's indefinite longings, sighs, and tears, so as to respond to them in His all-wise way ? To Him who steps out of His everlasting in every creative and providential act, it cannot be impossible to embrace the long future with its countless calls, to make arrangements ages before, and to carry these arrangements out in man's living present so as to be faithful to the promise, "Before they call I will answer, and while they are yet speaking I will hear." II. While the ■possibility of God answei'iiig ^prayer in the sensible sphere has been established, it has to be remarked ■ " Reign of Law,' pp. 96-99. Appendix. 227 fjirther fJiat it zvould be highly incoiwenient for Him to allow ;pr ay er to be ^ict to the test of sense. Now when we say so, we hope that we shall not be mis- understood. God has answered prayer in the sensible sphere in such a way as forced men to exclaim, " This is the finger of God." The miracles, which we take leave to say come down to us with as satisfactory testimonials as Dr. Tyndall's friend could collect supposing his experiment possible and successful, are demonstrations to the senses of the power and efficacy of prayer. The great miracle of the resurrection of Christ from the dead, round which, as a centre, all other remedial miracles cluster, is as historically certain as any other fact within the compass of human experience, and it was the great answer of God to prayer. (Heb. v. 7.) And God answers prayer in the sensible sphere still — He gives men their request. He allows them to have their head- strong way often, when they insist on sensible success, on riches, on popularity, on glory, on indulgence. They may not possibly pray for these things in definite petitions, but the longings of their souls are, as Emerson puts it, " prayers heard throughout all nature, though for cheap ends." He gives them their request, but sends leanness into their souls. (Psalm cvi. 15.) Yes, and He hears " prayer for the sick," and answers it — sometimes in restoration to health, sometimes in "the abundant entrance " ; but whether in summer brightness or in winter gloom the consummation comes, the intercessors believe that prayer has had its answer. They believe it, we repeat, although if you ask them to demonstrate it to 3^our senses, they merely stare at 5^ou, and wonder if they must be called upon to demonstrate the existence of colours to the blind. With them believing is seeing, while your demand is for seeing before believing. And if it be further asked. What good is there in all this prayer which has no answer that can satisfy those who walk "according to the appearance of things" (§ta clhov^ — 2 Cor. v. 7), and not "by faith"? then the reply is easy. It is great good to the interceding soul to commune with the great Spirit about the sick, it is great good to press our 2 2 8 Appendix. creature!}^ sympathies for the sick upon His attention, while at the same time we use all known means and remedies, and tell Him to do what He sees to be best. The remedies are but the outcome of His love, prayer is the appeal to that love and the resting in it, and the answer, whatever it may be, comes to us, although yoiL may hardly see how, as the answer of love. But it may be said, "Your faith is superstitious." To this the reply is what we have said on the first point, " Our faith is reasonable, more reasonable, more brave, more invigorating than your doubt." We are on surer ground in thus worship- ping a God who may be known in endearing, loving relations than if we merely trusted that there is a God over the wall of nature, but who never shows Himself through the lattice. If again it be said, "Would not such ocular demonstration as is suggested be exceedingly desirable ? Would not the world yield itself up to God if it saw His hand and felt His finger ? If successful, would the world not submit at once to the Supreme?" we reply, such ocular demonstration would be highly inconvenient. It would require, as we have tried to show, ;permaiiejice to have its due effect. It would also, which is much more serious, translate Christianity from the sphere oi faith to the sphere oi sight. Prayer, receiving a definite sensible answer in one sphere of life, would be plied in every sphere for analogous results. The world would join the Church, not out of motives of self-denial, but out of self- indulgence. Christians would be transmuted into mercenaries, and, as an eloquent French preacher has said, disciples "would demand deliverance from sickness and temptation, and immediately their prayer would be answered, and suffering and evil would flee away as a shadow, and from their level pathway all asperities would disappear. Their desires, formed with difficulty, would be visibly accomplished, . . . and do you not see," he continues, "that all would like to be Christians such as you, and all, like you, would pray ? For love ? Oh no, indeed ! but from interest, of course." * The fact is, that if we are to have a Christian life, faith is essential to it, and all effort to eliminate this element will give * " Sermons," par Eug. Bersier, vol. iv., p. 119. Appe^tdix. 229 you — not life, but the disappointment of death. If we are to have any Hving relations with God we must be prepared to trust Him ; if w^e insist on trusting Him no farther than we see Him, it is but little we shall see of the King's face. In the clear light of the "spirit and the truth" into which He calls us, the perplexities of the lower regions of sense vanish, and we see light, and, it may be unconsciously, become Itcmmous, but we cannot translate the vision of faith into a panorama to satisfy the curious, w^ho will only believe in what they see. NOTE I (p. 138). Experience the true Proof of Christianity. An excellent discourse will be found in Decoppet's "Ser- mons," entitled, "La Verite du Christianisme Prouvee par I'experience." Some significant remarks will also be found in Green's " Witness of God and Faith," pp. 96-99. We content ourselves with the following quotation from the admirable volume of Dr. Wace, already referred to, and with another from Dr. Lober : — " Of course, if the historic reality of the events narrated in the Gospels could be disproved, we should have to reconsider our position altogether ; and it is hard to see what would remain of the beliefs and convictions which so many genera- tions of Christians have held dear. But there is no such disproof ; and, on the other hand, we possess — every Christian should possess in his own experience — a conviction, not less clear than that to which St. Peter appealed, of the living poW'Cr and life of our risen and ascended Lord. After all, there is this permanent evidence to the truth of our Lord's resurrection, and to His present glory and power, that all Christians, and the Church at large, can approach Him by prayer, and receive from Him a grace and power, of which they may be as assured as of any other fact in their experi- ence, to enable them continually to realize in increasing degree the graces of the spiritual life. In proportion as we realize this privilege, will our path be untroubled by the 230 Appendix. shadows of doubt, and we shall be enabled to bear witness to others of the power of the Lord's resurrection " (p. 171). After an admirable statement about the compatibility of answers to prayer with the Divine predestination, Dr. Lober thus proceeds : — *' Der uns inwohnende heilige Geist, der an alien Vorgangen unsres Lebens wirksamen Antheil nimmt und sie zum Gebet gestaltet, vermittelt audi den jedesmaligen Riickschlag des Gebetes in der Erhorung. Der unveranderliche Gott kann auf alle Veranderungen des menschlichen Lebens eingehn, well er iiberweltlich und innenweltlich zugleich, weil er der Lebendige ist und weil er sich in Christo in die endliche Entwicklung dahingegeben hat, um sie mit ewigem Inhalt ruckweise zu erfiillen, um gegeniiber aller Verlassenheit und Traurigkeit des Menschen immer von Neuem zu setzen seine Liebe und Seligkeit. Die Erhorung und die Vorherbestim- mung Gottes stehn so wenig mit einander in Widerspruch, dass die Erhorung in einzelnen Fall vielmehr der durch unsre Mitwirkung mitveranlasste lebendige VoUzug der Vorherbe- stimmung gennant werden muss. Die innre Thatsache der Erhorung kann nicht bestritten, aber denen auch nicht be- wiesen werden, die sie in sich nicht erfahren haben. Wem aber die allgemeine Selbstbejahung Gottes in Wort und Sakrament zu allgemein erscheint, der sollte doch die Indivi- dualisirung jener Selbstbejahung in dem betenden Christen anerkennen und einraumen, dass die durch die Erhorung in dem Beter erzeugte ruhige, widerspruchslose und friedens- reiche Identitat mit sich selber keine Chimare sei. 1st aber die Thatsache der Erhorung durch die eigne Erfahrung fest- gestellt, so kann sie auch begrifflich zerlegt, in ihrem innern Zusammenhang blossgclegt werden, ohne dass sic dabei zur kalten Lcichc wird." — Dr. Lober's " Die Lchrc vom Gebet," s. 75- NOTE J. (p. 151). The Miracles of Jesus Christ. It is supposed by some that even one intrusion of the super- natural into the natural would endanger the edifice of science. Appendix. 231 Thus Professor Green affirms, "If we assert a suspension of its [nature's] laws, a break in its continuity, to have taken place even in a single case ; if we maintain so much as the possibility of an intrusion or ' projection ' of extra-natural agency within the natural ; though we may be willing to stake our life upon the proposition, or more truly upon some moral or spiritual interest which we wrongly suppose it to involve, we are none the less saying what is intrinsically unmeaning ; for we are affirming the existence of knowledge and nature, and at the same time denying the principle in virtue of which alone knowledge is possible, and there is for our consciousness such a thing as nature." — " The Witness of God and Faith," p. 83. In opposition to such a "crotchet" of science as is thus stated, we may be allowed to quote as a set-off the following : — "I certainly intend no discourtesy, yet in justice to the churches I am constrained to say that ignorance of what evangelical teaching really is seems to be the occasion of not a few common objections to it, ^Vhen it is said, for example, that the Church founds its belief in the Divine Person of Christ upon the miracles which He wrought, the statement falls very far wide of the facts. It is the character of Christ which is the supreme evidence of His supernatural Person. The chief argument for the divinity of Christ is His humanity. Close your eyes for the time being to all accounts of the mighty work of Jesus ; seek to form a clear conception of His Person and life ; and that character, when once really seen, will be its own evidence, the proof of Jesus' unique oneness with the Father. Then read again the accounts of the miracles, and they will seem no longer miracles when narrated of such a Christ ; they are as natural to Him as our commonest deeds are to us ; they are contrary to our experience of other men, but not contrary to the world's experience of Jesus Christ. The divine humanity of Christ is the citadel of evan- gelical faith. Miracles have still their evidential value ; they are the collateral securities of faith ; but why question the collaterals when the Divine handwriting in the character of Christ remains unimpeached and unimpeachable?" — Rev. Dr. Newman Smyth in his " Orthodox Theology of To-day." 232 Appendix, And again from another author : — "Where, it is asked, are the evidences of the Saviour's interpositions in the affairs of ordinary life, in the natural course of physical existence ? Miraculous signs, such as those recorded in the Gospels, are no longer exhibited among us, and how are we to believe in a constant personal action which is not open to our perception ? Now, the first and most direct reply to such objections was anticipated by the centurion,* whose signal display of faith is recorded in the text as having aroused our Lord's admiration. He realized, from his expe- rience of the methods of action in human affairs, that there was no occasion, for the purpose of our Lord's intervention, of any extraordinary and conspicuous manifestation. If he, a man under authority, yet had soldiers under him, and could say to this man. Go, and he goeth ; and to another. Come, and he cometh ; and to his servant, Do this, and he doeth it ; our Lord had but to speak the word to those natural elements of which He was the Creator and Master, and His will would be surely, though it might be silently, executed. But the excellence of the centurion's faith in this respect deserves a more particular consideration, and it will be more apparent by contrast with two opposite states of mind. The contrast to it which our Lord chiefly encountered was the peculiar dis- position of the Jews, who, except they saw signs and wonders, would not believe. They fully recognized the existence of a Divine power possessing command over all the forces of nature ; but they would not believe in our Lord's ability to exert it, or in His readiness to aid them, unless it were manifested by some signal and extraordinary means. But there is another state of mind, akin to this in reahty, and yet contrasted with it, which is prevalent at the present day. The form of unbelief which we have to encounter — and to encounter in ourselves, no doubt, as well as in others — is not one which craves for startling and overpowering instances of Divine interposition, but one which doubts the reality of personal interposition at all, on the part of God, in the course of nature, and in human life. To the Jews that interposition had, so to say, become * See Matt. viii. 5-10. Appendix. 233 so common and familiar an idea that they thought nothing of it, and scarcely regarded it as specially concerning them, unless it were exhibited in some exceptional form. To many among ourselves, on the other hand, the idea has become so unfamiliar that we find a difficulty in applying it to every-day life ; and because we see no signs and wonders, we, too, do not beUeve. Starting in the opposite direction, we have come round to the same point as the Jews. Modern thought is absorbed and fascinated by the contemplation of the order of nature and the constancy of its methods. Fixing its attention almost exclusively on the impersonal part of nature, it fails to penetrate to the personality behind ; and thus — even, it is to be feared, to many true Christian hearts — the intense conviction expressed in the Psalms of the living God being present with us, and directly acting upon us in every moment of our exist- ence, controlling for us every circumstance of our lives, and ordering all that concerns ourselves and others, and the course of the world at large, in accordance with His will, with His approval and disapproval, and with His own spiritual pur poses — this realization of the personal presence and action of the living God — in many cases, alas ! absolutely denied and excluded — is, it is to be feared, in many others grievously enfeebled. Now, that which forms the great and abiding wonder of the faith of the centurion is that, by one simple observation, he supplies the conclusive and permanent answer to all these doubts and denials. As Luther puts it, with his usual vividness, ' This heathen soldier turns theologian, and begins to dispute in as fine and Christian-Hke a manner as would suffice for a man who had been many years Doctor of Divinity.' He cuts the knot at once by that bold reasoning by analogy from man to God, of which our Lord's teaching is so full, and which is involved in the cardinal doctrines of the Gospel, such as the Divine Fatherhood and the forgiveness of sins. He says, simply, that the kind of action which men exhibit must be possible for God. It is impossible for Him to be more restricted in His action than His creatures ; and if they are able by subordinate agencies to carry out their will, and to modify by the interposition of that will what would otherwise be the natural course of events, it is inconceivable 2 34 Appendix, that it should be impossible for Him to do the same." — Rev. Dr. Wace, in his "Gospel and its Witnesses," pp. 98-101. Note K (p. 152). On the Wisdom of Miracles Ceasing. We have all along implied that miracles have ceased. We have tried to show that such an admission has no effect upon the question of the efficacy of prayer. But the cessation of miracles is an ^/;^/(!:<3:/ question, and not a physical necessity. Its ground is the unwillingness of God to put His intelligent creatures to any intellectual confusion. As the editor of the Sj^ectator has said in his admirable summing up of the con- troversy on September 7th, 1872, "We may fairly assume that no modest Christian will pray for a miracle for his own par- ticular benefit, or that of his friends — i.e., for any interference which would unsettle all other men's confidence in the great invariable laws known to us, and therefore their trust in the God of nature — nay, even that he could hardly believe it per- mitted to a religious mind so to pray." Note L (p. 152). On Alleged Healing by Prayer. From what has been already said about the hospital test, it will be inferred that we have not had evidence sufficient to satisfy us upon the subject of present healing by means of prayer only. That this is a quite distinct question from what we have been considering will appear on the least thought. It really amounts to this, Docs God at present set means at defiance, and encourage men to expect healing without them ? Now a study of our Lord's miracles will show that the healing of the body was never granted to discourage personal exertion, but to secure it. Christ's philanthropy was of the wisest kind, and insured the activity as members of society of those who had been healed. A course of healing, consequently, which would put medical science to confusion and issue in a contempt Appendix. 235 for means, would in the end prove disastrous. On these grounds, therefore, we would be very doubtful about alleged cases of cure by prayer alone. That there are cases of nervous disorder, however, where cheerful and tranquillizing surround- ings and religious exercises may go far to restore the troubled one to peace, we can well believe. We have been ourselves to Mannedorf, on Lake Zurich, and have seen the simple and tranquillizing environment which Dorothea Triidel afforded to her patients, and can well believe that for such a class of disorders as we have indicated such treatment may be most suitable. But such cures would seem to us to be according to the order of nature. We have not yet got to the bottom of the influence of the imagination and of conscience upon disease. There are doubtless many important physical facts lying in that direction, and which the alleged cures by prayer have brought within the range of practical solution. The following further quotation from Dr. Wace is worthy of study in this connection : — *' It is contrary, in fact, to all the analogy of God's dealings, in nature and in grace alike, to excuse us from the due exercise, to the utmost of our powers, of our natural faculties. During His stay on earth He took us, as it were, by the hand, and placed us in the right path, and He has since been training us in all the ways of spiritual, moral, intellectual, and physical truth. Undoubtedly the physical condition of mankind has been vastly ameliorated, and is being daily more and more ameliorated, by the elevation of their moral nature through the Gospel, and through spiritual grace ; and we may well believe that infinite possibilities in this respect still remain, which God designs us to realize in the exercise, under that spiritual influence, of our natural powers. He would have us exert ourselves in all ways to the utmost, according to His own lesson in one of His miracles, ' Gathering up the fragments, that nothing be lost.' But what a supreme blessing to be assured that He is ever with us, to bless and to complete every eifort that we can make ! The law laid down by the Apostle applies to our whole career. God will not protect us from all temptation, nor deliver us at one stroke from the evils which we have brought upon ourselves. But He is ever near, as 236 Appendix. with the disciples in the storm, to ensure that we shall not be overwhelmed : He ' is faithful, and will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able ; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that we may be able to bear it.' Under His guidance, and with His aid, a way of deliverance from all evils is ever open to us. If we have failed to realize it, let us ask ourselves how far we have appealed to Him with the faith which is exhibited in those examples of His saving power which St. Matthew here brings before us. The rule of His working has ever been, ' As thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.' All things — all things necessary for our spiritual health, and for our physical welfare also, so far as the latter is compatible with the former — are still, as ever, possible to him that believeth ; and let us pray, at the conclu- sion of such meditations,' 'Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief.'" — "The Gospel and its Witnesses," pp. 111-113. Note M ( p. 154). The Doctrine of Christ on the Subject of Prayer. In asking attention to Chrisfs ideas on the subject of prayer, we are simply following the method which we invariably pursue in the investigation of any subject. When we desire a know- ledge of any particular subject, whether scientific, literary, or religious, we go at once to the best mind, living or dead, to whom we have access, and ascertain what he thinks upon it. It is a waste of time to begin with small minds, if we have, through books or personal intercourse, access to the really great. In going straight to Christ, then, we are by well-nigh universal admission consulting the most exalted mind which humanity has produced. " There seem," says an able writer, " to be three ultimates of our verifiable knowledge, three fixed facts of human experience, beyond which we cannot go ; and these three are on the one side, matter and force ; and on the other the character of Jesus Christ. Physics cannot carry us beyond the former; and moral history leaves us before the latter as its last, grandest, and most enduring fact." * * " The Religious Feeling." by Newman Smyth. New York : Scribner, Armstrong, and Co. ; p. 88. Appendix, 237 Or to quote from another and thoroughly impartial witness, the late John Stuart Mill, " Whatever else may be taken away from us by rational criticism, Christ is still left ; a unique figure, not more unlike all His precursors than all His followers, even those who had the direct benefit of His personal teaching. It is of no use to say that Christ as exhibited in the Gospels is not historical, and that we know not how much of what is admirable has been superadded by the tradition of His fol- lowers. . . . Who among His disciples or among their prose- lytes was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels ? Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee ; and certainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyncrasies were of a totally different sort. . . . About the life and sayings of Jesus there is a stamp of personal originality combined with profundity of insight, which, if we abandon the idle expectation of finding scientific precision where something very different was aimed at, must place the Prophet of Nazareth, even in the estimation of those who have no belief in His inspiration, in the very first rank of the men of sublime genius of whom our species can boast. W^hen this pre-eminent genius is combined with the qualities of probably the greatest moral reformer and martyr to that mission who ever existed upon earth, religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice in pitching on this man as the ideal representative and guide of humanity ; nor even now would it be easy, even for an unbeliever, to find a better trans- lation of the rule of virtue, from the abstract into the concrete, than to endeavour to so live that Christ would approve our life."* In proposing, therefore, to consult Christ upon the subject of prayer, we are simply proposing to consult the highest authority, and, by the admission even of His enemies, the most transcendent moral Genius which our species has pro- duced. Now, when we take up the Gospels, we find that Jesus not only gave instruction about the nature of prayer, but also made large use of it Himself. It may be safely asserted that He was the most prayerful man who ever lived in this world of * "Three Essays on Religion," pp. 253-5, 238 Appendix. ours. If Luther, amid the multiform duties of the Reformation epoch, declared that he could not get through his work on a less allowance than three hours of daily prayer, it may be similarly said of Him " who went about doing good" that He could not get through His work unless He spent long seasons, and sometimes entire nights, in prayer (cf. Luke vi. 12, 13). And if from this fact of His prayerfulness we advance to the spirit and substance of His pra3^er, we shall find definite and interesting information. To one passage in the fourth Gospel we would ask special attention, as affording the exact insight which we seek into the prayerfulness of Christ. "Then answered Jesus and said unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do ; for what things soever He doeth, them also doeththe Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doeth ; and He will show Him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son ; that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father Who hath sent Him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth M)^ Word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself; and hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man. Marvel not at this ; for the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth : they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation. I can of mine ownself do nothing : as I hear I judge, and My judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father who hath sent Me" (John v. 19-30). Appendix. 239 Now let us obsen'e the spirit which this sublime Genius, Jesus Christ, exhibits in this passage. It may be expressed in two words as a spirit of perfect dependence. It is well known that the great service rendered by Friedrich Schleier- macher to religion consisted in making the sense of dependence its source. Now it is exactly this sense of dependence that we see exhibited by Jesus Christ in perfection. He could not, by which is meant He would not, do anything of Himself, but always in felt fellowship with the Father. And to this con- scious dependence of spirit the Father responded by showing Him ALL THINGS that Himself doeth, even up to the raising of the physically and spiritually dead. Jesus would do nothing in an independent spirit, and the Father, he here asserts, revealed all His secrets to Him. Observe, then, the light which this spirit of dependence sheds upon the prayerfulness of Christ. Prayer was the means em- ployed by Jesus to secure that perfect rapport of spirit with the Father, out of which all His work came. Through prayer this genius held high counsel with the Father, obtained the right views of men and things, acquired a distinct idea of what the Father desired in every case, and in consequence met His work fully prepared for its perfect discharge. Let us take, by way of an example, the first act of pra3'er on the part of'Jesus mentioned in the Gospels, His prayer at His baptism. Of course His 3^outh and development must have exhibited a large devotional element. His prayerful manhood was in fact the continuance of the childlikeness which had characterised Him from the first He never grew " man- nish" and independent, as we are tempted to do, but main- tained before the Father a perfect Sonship. It is in connection with His baptism, however, that we first read about Him praying. "Now, when all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape, like a dove upon Him ; and a voice came from heaven, which said. Thou art My beloved Son ; in Thee I am well- pleased" (Luke iii. 21, 22). "He had prayed. What had He demanded?" says a writer. "We can infer it from what He obtained. In the 240 Appendix. first place the heaven was opened. The veil of sense [chair') which Jesus had allowed from His birth to interpose between Heaven and Himself was rent ; He could decipher to the very- bottom the abyss of the Divine decrees ; the plan conceived from all eternity for our salvation and our glory was fully unveiled to Him. The thought of God became His own. From this moment a Divine teaching could echo through the earth, and God be revealed to the world." * Or to quote from Dr. Godet's " Commentary on Luke," "Whilst Jesus prayed. His eyes fixed on high, the celestial vault rends itself to His regards, and His eye contemplates the dwelling-place of the eternal light. The spiritual fact, of which this phenomenon is, as it were, the sensible envelope, is the perfect intelhgence accorded to Jesus of the Divine plan and of the work of salva- tion. The treasure of the Divine wisdom is henceforth opened to Him, and He can draw forth every hour the particular light which will be necessary to Him. The first phenomenon repre- sents, then, ih^ ^e7'fect revelation:' Suppose, then, that we translate into modern phraseology the facts now before us. The will of the Father embraces what we call "the laws" which regulate nature ; when, there- fore, Jesus asserts, " The Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doeth," He claims no less than an insight into the entire Divine administration ; a laying bare to the man, Christ Jesus, of the secrets of the universe. This, then, is Jesus Christ's idea of what He gained through prayer. Prayer is, in fact, a means of rising into a fuller understanding of the Divine will and ways. It enables man to contemplate from the highest vantage-ground the will and mind of God, so far as this is revealed to him. Jesus, as we believe, had/)^// insight given to Him ; but minor minds, while denied in the very nature of things all the insight which Jesus could receive, may get through prayer an increasing insight into the Divine ways, the heaven is opened more and more widely, and the secrets in larger measure revealed. And here, before proceeding farther, let us notice the bearing of this full insight of Jesus upon the question of miracles. If to Jesus, through His perfect rapport with God the Father, * Dr. Godet's "La ?riere,"p. 7. Appendix. 241 there was given a full insight into the Father's operations, then the working of miracles became but the application of this higher knowledge. The higher laws, of which presumably miracles are manifestations, being revealed to Jesus, He had only prayerfully to put His knowledge into practice. The miracles are consequently to be regarded as the outcome of insight, such as none of the children of men but Christ received, and received, as we have seen, through the exercise of prayer. The apostolic miracles were admittedly wrought in the name, and by the power, of the unseen yet present Jesus. But we have much more in the baptismal prayer of Jesus Christ than the effort after a full knowledge of God's will. After the heaven was opened to the praying Saviour, the Holy Spirit descended on Him in the form of a dove. It is evident from this that Jesus sought in prayer not only a knowledge of the Divine will, but also a complete inspiration to enable Him to do that will. Knowledge is meant to be carried into action. The acquisition of knowledge, without any desire to apply it to the benefit of others, is only refined selfishness. Hence we find this greatest genius, Jesus Christ, seeking through prayer an inspiration that He may carry His perfect insight into perfect action. The dove, being an organic whole, indicated the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus in His entirety. If the opened heaven, as we have seen, indicated 2. ;perfect revelation, then the descending dove indicated 2.;perfectins;piration. Through prayer His human soul was reinforced from above. Jesus thus became at once the most enlightened of the sons of men and the most inspired. And, finally, we are to observe that Jesus received in response to His baptismal prayer the assurance of His Son- shij>. The voice came from Heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; in Thee I am well-pleased." This is the conscious relation into which Jesus, as the Son, so perfectly dependent upon the Father, was enabled to enter ; and it was this which sustained Him when all at last forsook Him and fled. (John xvi. 2^2.) In the experience of Jesus, then, prayer was a means of securing insight, inspiratio?z, and assurance. And if we go 16 242 Appendix over the other instances of His prayers, as given in the Gospels, we shall find that they were all intended to secure one or other of these three ends. Thus if we take His thanksgiving, which both Matthew and Luke record, "I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so. Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight" (Matt. xi. 25, 26; cf. also Luke x. 21, 22), we have an instance of insight into the Divine administration secured and expressed through prayer. Again, the prayer on the Mount of Trans- figuration was the securing of a special inspiration for spe- cially difficult work awaiting Him immediately in the valley, as well as in the near future at Jerusalem. If we compare the narratives, we shall find that, on descending from the mount, Jesus has presented to Him the case of the demented child, whom the nine disciples had failed to cure. The case yields to the treatment of Jesus, and He afterwards explains that such a case of insanity would only yield to prayer and fasting. This He had secured on the mountain-top, while tlie disciples, it would seem, had been prayerless in the valley. The inspiration, it should also be noticed, had been so mag- nificent as to cause Jesus to become transfigured and luminous before the three disciples ere He descended. (Cf. Luke ix. 28, 29, etc.) Again, His high-priestly prayer, as it has been called, given in John xvii., is a profound meditation upon His work, so far as it has been finished, and a manifestation of that insight into the Father's will and His people's needs, which can only be secured through prayer. While, again, Gethsemane and Calvary witnessed prayers in which He secured the personal assitrance of His SonshiJ) and His acceptance during the terrible ordeal through which He had to pass. We come, consequently, to this conclusion concern- ing Jesus Christ, that He regarded prayer as a means of securing an insight into the Divine plans, an i?ispi?'atio?i for the performance of His part of them, and an assurance of His Sonship while so performing His part. It will now be needful to pass from Hie example of our great genius to }l\s precepts in the matter of prayer. What He had found so helpful to Himself He recommended strongly, as we Appendix, 243 may suppose, to others. Having got insight, inspiration, and a comfortable assurance through communion with the Father, He taught men to seek the same blessings in the same way. Hence we find Him giving such directions as these : — First, the disciples are directed to come to God as children to a Father. Jesus realised, as we have seen, a perfect Son- ship, and hence He represented God as His correlate, a perfect Father. The fatherhoods of men He represented as helpful analogues of the fatherhood of God. The earthly fathers doubtless do not carry out in a perfect fashion the duties of fatherhood, but upon the whole, as Jesus shows us, they help us to a worthy though imperfect conception of the fatherhood of God. If the fathers of our flesh will hsten to the children's articulate petitions, if they will respond with all alacrity to an infant's cry, much more would Jesus have us to expect an audience from the Divine Father, the Father of our spirits. Secondly, the disciples are to remember that they are cojning to an Omniscient Father. Jesus was most particular in inculcating this. " But when ye pray, use not vain repeti- tions, as the heathen do : for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them ; for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask Him " (Matt. vi. 7, 8). It is not consequently to convey information to the Father that we pray ; it is simply to review our needs and the needs of others in the felt presence of Him who knows them all, and understands them infinitely better than we ever can do. And His fuller knowledge does not lead Him to ignore our petitions or despise our prayers. His Omniscience secures attention to tears and sighs and groans unutterable, as well as to the articulate litanies and artistic liturgies of men. To Omniscience there may sometimes be more significance in a tear than in the repetition of the Magnificat or the Te Deiun. Thirdly, the disciples are to regulate their petitions accord- ing to the dema?ids of the Divine administration. For the model prayer which Jesus taught His disciples is most majestic and orderly in its arrangement. It is full of that insight into God's ways and will which we have seen prayer intended to secure. God is addressed as the heavenly Father, and the 244 Appendix. first petition is for the hallowing of His name. Then follows the petition " Thy kingdom come," the authority of the Holy Father to be estabhshed broadly and deeply in the hearts of men. Then follows the petition, " Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven," a broad, statesmanlike hope that the Divine will may soon regulate earth as well as heaven. And next comes the modest request for daily bread — daily bread, observe, if consistent with the paramount interests which have gone before ; for if our hunger, rather than our satisfaction with bread, shall better help on the kingdom, we will as true disciples submit to the trying dispensation. Then the prayer passes to personal pardon and deliverance from evil. There is consequently due subordination here of personal needs to the universal interest. And this subordination of the personal to the general interest is what Jesus Himself practised. Hie personal wants, as in the wilderness, in Gethsemane, and on the Cross, were always subordinated to the wider interests of the Divine administration. Fourthly, the disciples Jesits shows 'tnay have to practise importunity jtcst as He had in prayer to God. He warned the disciples not to faint if their prayers were not immediately answered. It is childish to be always in a hurry ; insisting on instant answers and no credit being given : the disciples are instructed consequently to be importunate in their prayers, and their importunity will be rewarded. Not that there is any merit in importunity any more than in repetition ; but there is an edzication in it. Patience has its perfect work — impor- tunity embodies the "patience of hope," not the impatience of fear. Fifthly, the disciples, like Jesus Himself, are to pray for their e7temies and persecictors in i7nitation of the policy of their Father in heaven. Our great genius, Jesus Christ, gives His disciples instruction about prayer from the sunshine and the rain. It is surely interesting and profitable to contrast the different ways in which such a man as Professor Tyndall and such a genius as Jesus Christ interpret the same facts of nature. "But I say unto you," says Jesus, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and Appendix. 245 persecute you : that 3^6 ma}^ be the children of 5^our Father which is in heaven ; for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." That is to say, the sunshine and the rain, as they fall without respect of persons upon the world, are meant to demonstrate the love of the heavenly Father for His foes as well as for His friends, and should summon us to a kindred love and a magnanimous intercession. But Professor Tyndall urges that "the latest conclusions of science are in perfect accordance with the doctrine of the Master Himself, which manifestly was that the distribution of natural phenomena is not affected by moral or religious causes. 'He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.' " * Lastly, the disci;ples were encoitraged by Jesii^s to hope for greater answers to their frayers than He had received Himself. In the remarkable address Jesus delivered before He suffered He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also ; and greater works than these shall he do ; because I go unto My Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in My name that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask anything in My name I will do it " (John xiv. 12-14). These, we must admit, were most magnanimous words. They open up to the disciples greater possibilities than Jesus had realised as yet Himself. They are, however, possibilities in the sphere of work, and of work for the common weal ; not possibilities which can be utilised by selfishness. It is here, as it seems to us, that a large amount of confusion upon this subject of prayer arises. Promises, whose context shows that they are promises to large-hearted philanthropy, are misinter- preted and applied to pitiful, personal considerations. Pra3^er is not an instrument which selfishness is encouraged to wield, but an instrument by which we rise out of selfishness into in- creasingly large insight into God's ways and God's will. Hence Jesus encourages the disciples to ask anything in the way of usefulness, which a prayerful, philanthropic spirit leads them * " FrajTments of Science," vol. ii.. p. 6. 246 Appendix, to entertain, and He will from the Father's right hand make the prayer a prophecy, and grant greater results to their labours than attended His own. And this was realised after the Pen- tecost. " It is possible, indeed," says Principal Caird in his " Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion," " to carry the finitude and imperfection of our temporal life into the sphere of devotion, to make prayer only a reflection of our earthly anxieties and wants. But the peculiar significance of prayer lies in this, that therein we rise above ourselves ; we leave behind the interests which belong to us as creatures of time ; we enter into that sphere in which all the discords and evils of the time-world are but deceptive appearances and illusions, or possess no more reality than the passing shadows of clouds that lie here beneath our feet. The world in which we out- wardly live is only the unreal and the evanescent making believe to be real ; the true, the real, the world of unchangeable and eternal reality, is that in which we pray." A^ofe N (p. 159). Toleration of Christians terminated by the Jews. Kahnis, in his last work, " Der Gang der Kirche," brings out very interestingly the fact, that as Judaism had been tolerated by the heathen world, and synagogues erected for spiritual as distinguished from idolatrous worship, so Chris- tianity at first was tolerated as a species, it was supposed, of Judaism. But when the Jews turned so madly against the new system, the heathen world began to look more closely into its pretensions, and so discovered that it aimed at nothing less than universal empire. Hence it was a life-and-death struggle which began, and mart3a-dom, which proved such a support to the new faith, became the not unfrequent test of the sincerity of the Christian. Appendix, 247 NoteO (p. 161). Gibbon's Five Natural Causes for the Progress OF Christianity. In his celebrated fifteenth chapter he says : — "Our curiosity is naturally prompted to inquire by what means the Christian faith obtained so remarkable a victor}'- over the established religions of the earth. To this inquiry an obvious but satisfactory answer may be returned ; that it was owing to the convincing evidence of the doctrine itself, and to the ruling providence of its great Author. But as the truth and reason seldom find so favourable a reception in the world, and as the wisdom of Providence frequently conde- scends to use the passions of the human heart, and the general circumstances of mankind, as instruments to execute its pur- poses, we may still be permitted, though with becoming submission, to ask, not indeed what were the first, but what were the secondary causes of the rapid growth of the Christian Church ? It will perhaps appear that it was most effectually favoured and assisted by the five following causes: — i. The inflexible zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses. 2. The doctrine of a future life improved by eveiy additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth. 3. The miraculous powers ascribed to the Primitive Church. 4. The pure and austere morals of the Christians. 5. The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman Empire." iVb/^P(p. 162). The Succession of Saints. "■ It can certainly be said, without fear of contradiction, that in every age since the first preaching of the Gospel to the present time, a succession of saints has been maintained, not unworthy to be enrolled with those of the Primitive Church. They have been fewer or more obscure at one time than 248 Appendix. another, but no one acquainted with the course of ecclesias- tical history will deny their continuous existence. The life of this brotherhood of saints has flowed on in a perennial stream, pure and gracious in itself, and bringing vitality to the arid wastes of natural society, or corrupt Christianity, which lay around its course. Connected with this, and as a consequence of it, is another fact equally conspicuous throughout the Chris- tian ages — that of a power of constant revival and reformation within the Christian Church. This, it must be owned, on candid consideration, is a unique phenomenon in human ex- perience. In all histoiy, except that in which the Church has been the prominent influence, the law of development has been that which prevails in the natural world, of growth up to a certain point, followed by decay. One nature after another has come on the stage of the world's history, and each has brought some new contribution to its life, some new energ3% moral or intellectual. Eg3'pt, Greece, and Rome, for instance, have thus succeeded one another, and each has established for a time an imposing civilization. But in each case the civilization became corrupt, and when that corruption had once set in, there was no power of resistance or renovation. But the history of Christendom — a history which is now that of eighteen centuries — is that of a succession of reformations of moral and intellectual life. There is no race, neither Greek, nor Roman, nor Celtic, nor German, which has not from time to time felt this reforming and regenerating power, and which has not thus been enabled to cast oif its corruptions and enter on a new career. It was by the influence of the Church, as no impartial historian will question, that out of the corrupted elements of the Greek and Roman world, and the fierce and untamed energies of the Teutonic races, the grand and endur- ing fabric of our present civilization was built up. The moral and spiritual energies of Christian missionaries exerted a creative force and a power of control which were lacking alike to Greek arts and to Roman arms, and they thus sowed the seeds of an ever-growing Christendom. All other civilizations and faiths have fallen into decay, while this alone exhibits the elements of an enduring vitality." — Rev. Dr. Wace in his " Gospel and its Witnesses," pp. 206-8. Appendix. 249 Note Q (p. 164). Certainty through Experience. "There is an intimate and necessary connection between holiness and truth. Show me a life truly holy, truly serious, devoted, and consecrated to the service of God — I tell you that this life plunges its roots into the soil of truth — I affirm that the power which has created and which sustains this life is a Divine power. That is stronger than all arguments. And, in a word, is it not thus that the most of you have been led to the assurance that the Gospel is the truth ? Have you found this assurance at the end of a syllogism, after the philosophical examination of the proofs of Christianity ? No, that which has convinced you, is the peaceful and sweet light which it has shed abroad in such a soil as you know ; the moral superiority which it has given to such an humble existence as slips away at your side. For myself I declare it, when my faith has traversed epochs of trouble, when it has been for a moment overwhelmed by the objections of sceptical science — that which has established it, that which has re- attached me to Christianit}^ has been the moral beauty, serenity, and the depth of life in certain Christians whom God in His bounty has allowed me to meet upon my way. That which produces such a life, I said to myself, that which renders it so happy, that which transforms human nature thus — is true. There is not an objection, there is not a system which can stand before such a fact." — Decoppet's "Sermons," pp. 246-7. Note R (p. 172). Christendom the true Embodiment of Self- Renunciation. " It is in Christendom that, according to the providence of God, this power has been exhibited ; not indeed either adequately or exclusivel}^ but most full}^ In the religions of the East the idea of a death to the fleshly self, as the end of the merely human, and the beginning of a Divine life, has not been wanting; nor, as a mere idea, has it been very 250 Appendix. different from that which is the ground of Christianit3\ But there it has never been realised in action, either intellectually or morally. The idea of the withdrawal from sense has remained abstract. It has not issued in such a struggle with the superficial view of things as has gradually constituted the science of Christendom. In like manner that of self-renuncia- tion has never emerged from the esoteric state. It has had no outlet into the life of charity, but a back way always open into the life of sensual license, and has been finally mechanised in the artificial vacancy of the dervish or fakir." — Professor Green's " Witness of God and Faith," pp. 21-2. N'ote S (p. 204). History of the Controversy. It will not be needful to refer to the controversy in ancient times. Incidental references to it among- the fathers and the schoolmen are to be found ; but not until the rise of science properly so called, could the controversy be expected to take serious shape and form.* There is nothing of special importance upon the subject arising out of the Deistical controversy of last century. Chubb is the only one of the Deists who renounces his faith in prayer, for in his earlier years he believed in and explained admirably the duty of prayer. **To address God," he said, "for the obtaining of a thing, and yet not to propose the obtaining that thing as the end of that address, is absurd." t But he was led to give up his faith in this duty on account of the failure of prayer for the morality of kings. \ As his position resembles that assumed quite recently by Mr. Galton, it need not at this stage detain us. * Cf. Jellett's ''Efficacy of Prayer," Introduction, pp. xix.-xxxi. f "Tracts," p. 181, quoted in Principal Cairns' " Unl)elief in the Eighteenth Century," p. 91. \ Cf. Chuhb's " Inquiry concerning Prayer,'" being Treatise Xllf. in his Tracts ; also Dr. Jellett's •' ICfficacy of Prayer,'" p. xxxiii. Appendix, 251 And now we pass on a centur}^ during which other points in the controversy between faith and unbeHef occupy attention, until the question of the efficacy of prayer is raised during the visitation of cholera in 1853. Scotland suffered severely from the pestilence, and, in the extremity, a petition was presented by the Presbytery of Edinburgh to Lord Palmerston, who was then Home Secretary, suggesting the propriety in the circum- stances of a national fast. " The members were of opinion," writes the Moderator, " that it was likely, in the circumstances, that a national fast would be appointed on ro)^al authority. For this reason they delayed making an appointment for this locality, and directed me, in the meantime, respectfully to request that you would be pleased to say — if you feel j^ourself at liberty to do so — whether the appointment of a national fast by the Queen is in contemplation. The Presbyter}^ hope to be excused for the liberty they use in preferring this request." To this petition Lord Palmerston replied, declining to advise Her Majesty to appoint any fast, and advising the Scotch people to look better after their drains. The following is part of his reply: — "Lord Palmerston would, therefore, suggest that the best course which the people of this country can pursue to deserve that the further progress of the cholera should be stayed, will be to employ the interval which will elapse between the present time and the beginning of next spring in planning and executing measures by which those portions of their towns and cities which are inhabited by the poorest classes, and which, from the nature of things, must most need purification and improvement, may be freed from those causes and sources of contagion which, if allowed to remain, will infallibly breed pestilence, and be fruitful in death, in spite of all the prayers and fastings of a united, but inactive, nation."* This rather ungracious reply of the veteran statesman gave rise at the time to a considerable amount of criticism. It was not that his opinion upon the religious point was in itself of any particular value, but that he had formulated what was * Cf. Buckle's " History of Civilisation," First Edition, vol. ii,, Notes, pp. 592-595- 252 Appendix, existiwg in man)^ minds — a persuasion that, for such a disaster as the cholera, prayer was totally inefficacious. We cannot do better than quote the observations of Mr. Buckle upon this incident, as given at the end of his second volume, which was published in 1861. He says: — "This correspondence between the Scotch clergy and the English statesman is not to be regarded as a mere passing episode of light or temporary interest. On the contrary, it represents that terrible struggle between theology and science which, having begun in the persecution of science and in the martyrdom of scientific men, has, in these late days, taken a happier turn, and is now manifestly destroying that old theological spirit, which has brought so much ruin and misery upon the world. " The ancient superstition, which was once universal, but is now slowly though surely dying away, represented the Deity as being constantly moved to anger, delighting in seeing His creatures abase and mortify themselves, taking pleasure in their sacrifices and their austerities, and, notwithstanding all they could do, constantly inflicting on them the most grievous punishment, among which the different forms of pestilence were conspicuous. It is by science, and by science alone, that these horrible delusions are being dissipated. Events, which formerly were deemed supernatural visitations, are now shown to depend upon natural causes, and to be amenable to natural remedies. Man can predict them, and man can deal with them. Being the inevitable result of their own ante- cedents, no room is left for the notion of their being special inflictions. This great change in our opinions is fatal to theology, but is serviceable to religion. . . . Science ascribes, to natural causes what theology ascribes to supernatural ones. According to this view, the calamities with which the world is afflicted are the result of the ignorance of man, and not of the interference of God. We must not, therefore, ascribe to Him what is due to our own folly, or to our own vice. We must not calumniate an all-wise and all-merciful Being, by imputing to Him those little passions which move ourselves, as if He were capable of rage, of jealousy, and of revenge, and as if He, with outstretched arms, were constantly em- ployed in aggravating the sufferings of mankind, and making Appendix. 253 the miseries of the human race more poignant than they would otherwise be." * Now, we may be allowed here to remark that, on Mr. Buckle's own showing, there is in the circumstances alluded to ample reason for humiliation and prayer. Suppose that visitations such as the cholera are due to man's ignorance, folly, or vice, as Mr. Buckle asserts ; and suppose that the universe is presided over by an Omniscient God, a truth which Mr. Buckle declares is fundamental with him ; then it is surely reasonable to connect the ignorance, folly, or vice of man judicially with the pestilential visitation. Nor would there be any folly in a nation humbling itself before the Omniscient One and confessing the ignorance, folly, and vice of which some of its members have been guilty, more especially as after such confession there would be the less likelihood of the ignorance, folly, and vice continuing. The only reasonable plea against the day of humiliation and prayer scouted by Lord Palmerston, would be such extreme urgency in the completion of the improved sanitation that even a day in the six months' work which his lordship prescribed could not possibly be spared ; which plea no sensible man would set up. The fact is that Mr. Buckle assumes in his line of observation what no one is prepared to concede without distinct proof, that the course of nature is merely mechanical and in no sense moral. As this is begging the whole ques- tion in dispute, it is as well to have it at once detected and assigned its true weight in the controversy. If vice and folly are names for real things, then, while we all admit that for wise reasons good and evil are not distributed in this life according to desert, but imperfect justice is meted out as the most striking of all prophecies of a world and judgment to come, we at the same time maintain that enough is done in the way of judgment to make thoughtful sinners acknowledge that they are watched and shall be rewarded by the Omniscient Judge. f Some years after the petition of the Edinburgh Presbytery * Cf. Buckle's " History of Civiliscation," vol. ii.. pp. 595-7- t Cf. " Remains of Rev. Charles Wolfe." Sixth Edition, pp. 325-6. 2 54 Appendix. to Lord Palmerston, a day of prayer and humiliation on account of a peculiarly bad harvest was appointed by the authorities of the Church of England ; but, to use the language of Professor Tyndall, ' ' certain clergymen of the Church of England, doubting the wisdom of the demonstration, declined to join in the services of the day. For this act of nonconformity they were severely censured by some of their brethren. Rightly or wrongly," continues the Professor, "my sympathies were on the side of these men ; and, to lend them a helping hand in their struggles against odds, I inserted the foregoing chapter in a little book entitled ' Mountaineering in 1861.' " * The foregoing chapter here referred to, consists in " Re- flections on Prayer and Natural Law," suggested by Professor Tyndall happening to meet an athletic young priest in the summer of 1858 near the foot of the Rhone Glacier, who had come up to "bless the mountains." These reflections are intended to force the advocates of prayer into the position of either believing in the miraculous as still active in nature, or giving up the idea of the efficacy of prayer. He does this by the following statement of the scientific doctrine of the con- servation of energy. " This principle asserts that no power can make its appearance in nature without an equivalent ex- penditure of some other power ; that natural agents are so related to each other as to be mutually convertible, but that no new agency is created. Light runs into heat ; heat into electricity ; electricity into magnetism ; magnetism into me- chanical force ; and mechanical force again into light and heat. The Proteus changes, but he is ever the same ; and his changes in nature, supposing no miracle to supervene, are the expression, not of spontaneity, but of physical necessity." "Science," he continues, " does assert, for example, that without a disturbance of natural law, quite as serious as the stoppage of an eclipse, or the rolling of the river Niagara up the Falls, no act of humiliation, individual or national, could call one shower from Heaven, or deflect towards us a single beam of the sun. Those, therefore, who believe that the miraculous is still active in nature, may, with perfect con- * Cf. '* Fragments of vScicncc," Sixth Edition, vol. ii., p. 7. Appendix. 255 sistency, join in our periodic prayers for fair weather and for rain ; while those who hold that the age of miracles is past, will, if they be consistent, refuse to join in these petitions." ~We desire to draw special attention to the way in which the Professor states the alternative. He does so, we are sure, with perfect sincerity, and he has done so with no little suc- cess ; for we shall find as we proceed that some of the apolo- gists commit themselves to lines of defence which mean neither more nor less than that we are still amid a dispensation of miracle. But, as we have, we hope, made plain, we are under no necessity to assume the miraculous as still active when maintaining the efficacy of prayer. In the )^ear i860 Dr. Richard Lober published his " Die Lehre vom Gebet aus der immanenten und okonomischen Trinitat." We have already referred gratefully to this work as carrying the problem into the very highest regions of thought. It is more scholastic than scientific in its character, yet is well worth attention. In the year 1863 the Rev. Thomas Hughes published his " Prayer and the Divine Order." From its title one is led to expect much, but gets in reality little. The author admits that his treatment is not scientific (p. 51), and, as he eschews the less ambitious practical methods, his work is singularly dis- appointing. In the year 1865 there was a discussion on the relation of prayer to cholera carried on in the Pall Mall Gazette, in which Professor Tyndall took part. All that is of importance has been preserved for us in the " Fragments of Science." No fresh light was thrown on the subject by the discussion. In the same year there was delivered at Oxford, upon the Bampton Foundation, the ablest series of lectures yet given to the world in connection with that now honoured name. I refer of course to the late Canon Mozley's book *'0n Miracles," Since the days of Bishop Butler the Anglican Church has produced no such thinker as Canon Mozley. Inasmuch, then, as Dr. Mozley proposed to deal with the question of the credi- bility of miracles, he was led at once to consider the bearing upon this of the " order of Nature." And in his treatment of this order in his second lecture he was led to show, as he does 256 Appendix. with matchless cogency and clearness, that we have no rational basis for our belief in the continued uniformity of nature. We believe in the continued uniformity ; we base upon our belief all our prudential calculations ; it is a law of our practical life, and yet it is a mere instinct, * ' an unintelligent impulse of which we can give no rational account." It was necessary for him to make this clear, in order to take away the ground from those who persist in maintaining that miracles, as opposed to the order of nature, were on that account opposed to reason. "There being no producible reason why a new event should be like the hitherto course of nature, no decision of reason is contradicted by its unlikeness. A miracle, in being opposed to our experience, is not only not opposed to necessary reasoning, but to any reasoning." * Again he says : " What is disturbed by a miracle is the mechanical expectation of recurrence, from which, and not from the system and arrange- ment in nature, the notion of immutability proceeds." f And yet again, " It does not belong to this (the inductive) principle to lay down speculative positions, and to say what can or can- not take place in the world. It does not belong to it to con- trol religious belief, or to determine that certain acts of God for the revelation of His will to man, reported to have taken place, have not taken place. Such decisions are totally out of its sphere ; it can assert the universal as a law \ but the universal as a law, and the universal as a proposition, are wholly distinct. The proposition is the universal as a fact, the law is the universal as a presumption ; the one is an absolute certainty, the other is a practical certainty, when there is no reason to expect the contrary. The one contains and includes the particular, the other does not ; from the one we argue mathematically to the falsehood of any opposite particular ; from the other we do not. Yet there has existed virtually in the speculations of some philosophers an identification of a universal as a law, with a universal proposition ; by which summary expedient they enclosed the world in iron, and bound the Deity in adamantine fetters ; for such a law forestalls all * "On Miracles." Second Edition, p. 48. t Page 56. Appendix, ^57 exception to it." * Not content with this analysis of the in- ductive principle and what it logically implies, Dr. Mozley proceeds in the succeeding lecture to show that it is really the imagination, and not the intellect, which leads up to the position assumed by many that the uniformity of nature cannot be violated. "The passive imagination in the present case exaggerates a practical expectation of the uniformity of nature, implanted in us for practical ends, into a scientific or universal proposition ; and it does this by surrendering itself to the impression produced by the constant spectacle of the regularity of visible nature. By such a course a person allows the weight and pressure of this idea to grow upon him till it reaches the point of actually restricting his sense of possibility to the mould of physical order." f It can easily be supposed that such an able exposure of the unfair use which is being made of the inductive principle would not long escape criticism. Besides, Dr. Mozley, unfor- tunately, in his first lecture complicates his argument by con- trasting miracles with special providences. He speaks of a special providence not differing from a miracle in its nature, but only in its evidence; and defines it as "an invisible miracle." The attentive student of Dr. Mozley' s argument will see that this reference to special providences is not in any sense essential to it, and as the result proved, it was most unfortunate. Dr. Tyndall, whose attention had been called to the " Bampton Lecture," at once pounced upon Dr. Mozley' s admission, and his review in the Fortjizghtly, since reprinted in his " Fragments of Science," deals almost entirely with this. After alluding to the manly position Dr. Mozley takes up upon the question of miracles, Professor Tyndall goes on to say : " Nor is it by miracles alone that the order of nature is, or may be, disturbed. The material universe is also the arena of ' special providences.' Under these two heads Dr. Mozley distributes the total preternatural. One form of the preternatural may shade into the other, as one colour passes into another in the rainbow ; but, while the line which divides the specially providential from the miraculous cannot * Pages 58-9. t Page 68. 17 258 Appendix, be sharply drawn, their distinction broadly expressed is this : that, while a special providence can only excite surmise more or less probable, it is 'the nature of a miracle to give proof, as distinguished from mere surmise, of Divine design.' " * This opening was too precious to be neglected by the acute Professor, and so he proceeds to ridicule alleged answers to prayer related by a Methodist chronicler, and answers expected by Tyrolese peasants at the mountain shrines, and brackets Dr. Mozley's belief with theirs as substantially the same. With Professor Tyndall's attempt to invalidate Dr. Mozley's position regarding the order of nature w'e are not here further concerned. But one thing we trust \ve have made clear, and that is, that the position to which the assailants of prayer desire to commit us, but which we have no need to concede, is that the efficacy of prayer, and the miraculous as still active among us, stand or fall together. That the testimony in favour of the miraculous in primitive times is abundant and sufficient we most firmly believe ; that the miraculous has, as far as we know, ceased, let us concede without hesita- tion ; but the efficacy of prayer is not, as we have shown, touched thereby. It is a matter of great regret that Dr. Mozley should have laid himself open by his allusion to " special providences" to the animadversions of the Professor. The reply of Canon Mozley to his critic, which handles the single point of the sinlessness of Christ, and which appeared in the ContemJ>orary Review, is one of the finest essays in any language, and we do not wonder that it has remained unanswered. It has just been republished in his "Lectures and Other Theological Papers." As we have devoted a separate note to the Hospital Prayer Test, we need not refer at length to the discussion in 1872*. Suffice it to say that the proposal, coupled with Mr. Galton's paper on the statistics of the subject, evoked a large amount of discussion. Dr. Littledale replied in the Co?ite?n_porary Review, showing the general consensus of mankind to the practice of prayer and its significance. In the British and Foreign Evangelical Review for October 1872, a paper * " Fragments of Science, " vul. ii., pp. 10, 11. Appendix. 259 appeared on "The Philosophy of Prayer," in which we pre- sented in briefer compass the argument elaborated in the present book ; while Dr. McCosh followed Dr. Littledale with a short and characteristic paper in the Coiitem;porary Review. We would now ask attention to the additional apologetic literature which the objections to prayer have evoked. The review must necessarily be brief, but we trust it will prove just. We propose arranging the notices of the apologists logically rather than chronologically. And first, we would ask attention to the Burney Prize Essay for 1873, entitled "Christian Prayer and General Laws," by George J. Romanes, M.A. This gentleman has since been making a name for himself as an authority upon "Animal Intelligence." His essay is an elaborate argument from our ignorance. He wishes to show that "the question at issue is a question entirely beyond the range of philosophical dis- cussion." * In doing so, he simply accepts the first principles of Herbert Spencer's philosophy as axiomatic, but, instead of insisting on the folly of prayer when God is "unknown and unknowable," he insists on the folly of discussing the question at all. His essay has all the appearance of an argiimeiituni ad ho?nineni addressed to members of the Agnostic School, and should be valuable to them, if they would take his advice. But unfortunately no ability, even of the order of Mr. Romanes, will suffice to keep the Agnostics to their own domain. Even when he insists, not only on our having no direct knowledge of the relations of general laws to God, but that "analogical inference is unable to touch" them,t his associates, we fear, will turn a deaf ear to his syren voice, and speculate on the subject notwithstanding. The discussion throughout the essay— which, with its supple- ment, runs to 268 pages — is chiefly a verbal one, and is not likely to have much weight either with the Agnostics, whose fundamentals he accepts, or with the Christian public, whose practice he very hesitatingly defends. There can be little doubt, moreover, from a careful comparison of the two volumes as to style, statement, and method, that "A Candid Exami- * Page 134. t Page 90 2 6o Appendix. nation of Theism," by Physicus, is by the same author, and if this is so, it is evident that his apology for prayer has not long satisfied himself. It has been very properly said regard- ing the latter volume, and the same observation applies to the essay under present consideration, "the chief argument is, that the conservation of energy explains everything. . . . This doctrine no more explains the design in things than does the related one of the indestructibility of matter. Both doctrines are compatible with utter phenomenal chaos. The cause of the phenomenal order, therefore, must be sought elsewhere. The doctrine in question is a mere commonplace, and is utterly powerless to throw any light on philosophical questions." * At the same time, the argument, which one committed to the fundamentals of the Agnostic philosophy can so feebly urge, may be urged with considerable weight by those who are not Agnostics. It is simply this, that if men like Professors Beesly and Tyndall are committed to the position that we neither know nor can know anything about God, then their discussion of such a subject as prayer can only be from an antagonistic and proselytising spirit. Prayer with an Agnostic is a waste of effort, since the Being addressed can make no sign — nay, since it is even suspected that He does not understand Himself or give to outsiders any intelligent account of His own being.t With the Agnostic School, therefore, the inefficacy of prayer is an early deduction from their funda- ' mentals, and they can have no impartiality in this debate. They are committed as partizans to a position of hostility, and must be proportionally suspected. We must at the same time do Mr. Romanes the justice of acknowledging that towards the end of his essay he once or twice gets upon suggestive lines of analogy which would have proved most fruitful, had he not been dominated by his earlier acceptance of the Spencerian principles. J * Professor 15. P. Bowne's " Studies in Theism," Note, p. 185. f Cf. Mr. Romanes' Essay, Note, p. 26, with Physicus' " Candid Examination of Theism," p. 195. J See especially pp. 161 -8. Appendix. 261 Assuming, then, that it is idle to expect our Agnostic philosophers to hold their hands in any discussion upon prayer, but, in contradiction of their own fundamentals, that they will insist on at least so much knowledge about God as that He neither can nor will hear prayer, we must inquire now what the apologists have offered in defence of the prac- tice of prayer. And here we would ask attention to the view propounded by the late Rev. F. W. Robertson, of Brighton. We need hardly say that whatever is advanced by one whom the late Dean Stanley has not hesitated to call " the greatest preacher of the nineteenth century," * is entitled to the respectful and earnest consideration of every thinker. Now Mr. Robertson appreciated the difficulty of maintaining the efficac}^ of prayer in face of the reign of law, which, we are assured, embraces everything. Accordingly, taking as his text our Lord's prayer in Gethsemane, " O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me : nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt" (Matt, xxxvi. 39), he proceeds to rear upon this single particular a most sweeping universal, and declares that "all pra3'er is to change the will human into submission to the will Divine." f We shall not pause upon the questionable interpretation adopted by Mr. Robertson and his numerous echoes, that our Lord's prayer on this occasion was denied. It may be shown, we think, most conclusively, that what our Lord prayed for was answered in the deliverance from all death through His resurrection, and in the deliverance from intolerable mental agony such as He was then enduring. J Consequently the whole assumption of prayer being inefficacious in this crucial case of Christ breaks down. But even granting that the fact was in favour of Mr. Robertson's view, his theory would very soon put an end to all prayer. The will of God, he assumes, is an un- changeable factor in the process, and prayer merely brings the human will into accordance therewith. That is to say, to * Cf. The Century for P'ebruary, 1882, p. 559. f Cf. Sermon III. in the Fourth Series. X Cf. Dr. John Brown's "Exposition of TTelirews,'* vol, i., pp. 225, 226. 262 Appendix. adopt the felicitous language of the Duke of Arg}dl, " Prayer to God has no other value or effect than so far as it may be a good way of preaching to ourselves." * M. Bersier has written a very excellent discourse in reply to Robertson, in which, among other things, he shows with his usual clearness that inte7-cession becomes upon this subjective hypothesis perfectly impossible. "In fact," he says, "if I cannot act upon another, if I can effect no change upon his destinies, I know not really for what end I should pray for him. From that point intercession becomes impossible : it ought to be relegated to the region of religious illusions, for in interceding for others I shall be only acting in my own interest, I shall be only developing my own interior life. Selfishness then, is the "last word in this system, selfishness in prayer, where all m}' outgoings have reference solely to myself." f Not only so, but this subjective hypothesis strikes at the root, not onl}'- of intercession, but of all prayer. It makes of it, to use Dr. Littledale's forcible expression, "an immoral sham." It is a handing of humanity over to inevitable fate, under whose shadow nothing but silent submission can reign. In Emerson we find the doctrine carried to its legitimate conclusion. " Prayer," he says, " is the conte7n;plation of the facts of life from the highest point of view." | Very soon this contem- plation will give place to the drudgery of continual activit)', and Laborare est orare will soon sum up the devotions of the world. "As soon," continues Emerson, "as the man is at one with God, he will not beg. He will then see prayer in all action. The prayer of the farmer kneeling in his field to weed it, the pra)'er of the rower kneeling with the stroke of his oar, are true prayers heard throughout nature, though for cheap ends." § No wonder, therefore, that some scientific men are willing to allow to prayer this subjective value. Under its spell the communion of man with his Maker degenerates into that inarticulate appeal which a dumb workman makes to * Cf. " Reign of Law," Fifth Edition, pp. 60, 61. t Cf. "Sermons," par Eiig. Bersier, tome iv., p. 104. X "Essays,'" Boston Edition, vol. i.. p. 68. § Ibid, Appendix. 263 a silent Heaven, Paley puts the matter in a clear light when he says, "After all, the duty of prayer depends upon its efficacy ; for I confess myself unable to conceive how any man can pray, or be obliged to pray, who expects nothing from his prayers, but who is persuaded, at the time he utters his request, that it cannot possibly produce the smallest im- pression upon the Being to whom it is addressed, or advantage to himself." * Well may we exclaim with the Duke of Argyll, " How can they pray who have come to this ? Can it ever be useful or helpful to believe a lie ? " t From what has been stated in the body of the present work, it will be evident to all that there is room in the " Reign of Law" for the efficacy of prayer, and no need to surrender its objective value. We would now^ pass to another compromise hazarded upon the subject, which, though in some respects analogous to Robertson's, does not propose to surrender quite so much : we refer to the theory of Mr., now Professor, Knight as given in a paper in the Contemporary Review for January 1873, on "The Function of Prayer in the Economy of the Universe." It is briefly this, that while prayer can have no physical effect, it has a spiritual one. In other words, Mr. Knight sur- renders the whole domain of physics to the dominion of inexorable law, while he reserves man's " spiritual freedom " and "the eternal freedom of God" as the sphere for the action of prayer. He further allows that prayer may have a secondary influence on physical nature, but through influence communicated in the first instance to men as spiritual beings, and through them wrought out in the physical world. That there may be no mistake as to our author's meaning, let the following quotation suffice : " We pray for a friend's life that seems endangered. Such prayer can never be an influential element in arresting the physical course of disease by one iota. But it may bring a fresh suggestion to the mind of a physician, or other attendant, to adopt a remedy which, by natural means, ' turns the tide ' of ebbing life, and determines the recovery of the patient. Or we pray for the removal of * " Moral Philosophy," book v., chap. ii. t " Rei(^n of Law,"' p. 6i. 264 Appendix, a pestilence, and the answer is given within the minds and hearts of those who take means to check it or uproot it. The latent power that lies within the free causality of man ma}^ be stimulated and put in motion from a point be)^ond the chain of physical sequence ; and crises innumerable may be averted through human prayer, thus dislodging a spiritual force that slumbers, and sending it beneficially forth from its ' hiding place of power.'" Now this theory, which proposes to divide by a hard-and- fast line the physical from the spiritual sphere, fails to satisfy the requirements of the case. The Scientists assert that the intellectual and moral nature of man is included in the reign of law just as well as his bodily nature ; and consequently if Mr. Knight admits that prayer is an impertinence in the physical sphere, he has the very same reason for admitting it to be an impertinence in the intellectual and moral. In a very able though brief paper in the Contem;porary Review for February 1873, entitled "Prayer: the Two Spheres — Are they Two ? ' ' the Duke of Arg^dl shows the utter untenabilit}'' of Mr. Knight's position. We need not dwell upon the details of this refutation, but shall merely quote the Duke's closing sentence : " Reason, Science, and Revelation alike point to the folly and ignorance of any attempt to draw an absolute line, where we confessedly have not the knowledge to enable us to do so ; and confirm the sound philosoph}'', as well as the piety, of the old Christian practice of ' in all cases making our requests known ' with the over-riding, over-ruling condition, ' Nevertheless not our will, but Thine be done.' " * Let us now pass to the theory of the Rev. Stopford A. Brooke upon the subject, which is a compromise very similar to Professor Knight's and Mr. Robertson's. He gives it to us in two Sermons published in his volume "Christ in Modern Life," and issued in 1872. He says, "Prayer has come into contact with scientific discovery, and I express the problem in theological terms when I say that the unchangeability of God * Mr. Romanes devotes a consideralile space of his "Supplementary Essay," pp. 208-236, to the refutation of Mr. Knight, much more than his theory deserves. Appendix. 265 as Lord of the physical world is expressed in modern science by the law of conservation of force, and that that law denies the power of prayer to alter any natural sequence." What does Mr. Brooke in these circumstances propose ? He pro- poses to give up all faith in prayer for physical objects, but at the same time he would advise men to yield to the instinct prompting them to pray, and so gain relief. " I do not there- fore believe that God interferes in any extraordinary manner with the usual course of nature. I do not believe that prayer does either bring or restrain rain ; I do not think that it can check the cholera or divert the lightning. At the same time I believe that God could stay the rain and dismiss the pestilence, if it were His will, at the voice of pra3^er. He may do so for all I know, but it would make me miserable to think that it were so. Directly, then, we ought not to pray for interference with the course of nature." But, then, he proceeds to maintain that inspiration is still possible, notwithstanding the reign of law, and that through the inspiration of man God may and does modif}^ the physical universe. And if prayer keeps this steadily in view, it is, he thinks, legitimate and efficacious. " Such prayers have force ; such prayers do modif}^, not directly, but indirectly through the effort of man, the course of the universe." And 3^et, after thus dividing the spheres, he counsels us to carry out the paradox of asking Him to do so for us, " even when we have no hope, even when we know that God will not change His laws." "There is a natural rush of the heart into petition," he says, " which it would be spiritual suicide to check." His position consequently is, " Expression relieves the o'erfraught heart, and, the pressure removed, it rebounds into the natural strength of health." It will be evident from these quotations that Mr. Brooke differs but little, if an3^thing, from Mr. Robertson, whose bio- grapher he has been. For the sake of the subjective influence prayer ought, he maintains, to be practised, even when we have no hope of any outward efficacy. But surely to yield to an instinct which is delusive could not long continue to relieve the heart. We may as well surrender the practice and privilege entirely, as live a delusive life like this. 2 66 Appendix. The compromises proposed b}^ Robertson, Brooke, and Knight fail, consequently, to satisfy an}'- candid inquirer. If the "reign of law" and the "conservation of energy " demand such sacri- fices as these, we may as well surrender the whole subject of prayer, and content ourselves with silent submission to inevit- able fate. Let us take up the position of automata at once, and be the silent, even though surly, puppets in the hands of inexorable and unalterable law. We shall now consider the contribution made by Dr. W. G. Ward to this subject. Next to Cardinal Newman, Dr. Ward is the most important recruit given by the Oxford movement to the Church of Rome. His essay upon prayer was originally published in the Dublin Review for April 1867, but has been reprinted lately under the title, "Science, Prayer, Free-will, and Miracles." We need hardly say that, like all Dr. Ward writes, this essay is characterised by great ability and fairness. It is chiefly remarkable for a parable it contains, to bring out clearly what he calls God's constant and unremitting " pre- movement." Dr. Ward, then, is ready for argument's sake to admit that "the whole material world proceeds unexcep- tionally on the basis of phenomenal uniformity ; that the laws of nature are most absolutely fixed " ; but this, he maintains, does not exclude, but rather favours, the supposition of a Divine pre-movement. This he illustrates thus : — " We begin, then, with imagining two mice, endowed, how- ever, with quasi-human or semi-human intelligence, enclosed within a grand pianoforte, but prevented in some way or other from interfering with the free play of its machinery. From time to time they are delighted with the strains of choice music. One of the two considers these to result from some agency external to the instrument, but the other, having a more philosophical mind, rises to the conception of fixed laws and phenomenal uniformity. * Science as yet,' he says, * is but in its infancy ; but I have already made one or two important discoveries. Every sound which reaches us is preceded by a constant vibration of these strings. The same string invariably produces the same sound ; and that louder or more gentle, accordingly as the vibration may be more or less intense. Sounds of a more composite character result when two or Appendix. 267 more of the strings vibrate together ; and heie, again, the sound produced, as far as I am able to discover, is precisely a compound of those sounds, which would have resulted from the various component strings vibrating separately. " ' Then there is a further sequence which I have observed ; for each vibration is preceded by a stroke from a corresponding hammer ; and the string vibrates more intensely in proportion as the hammer's stroke is more forcible. Thus far I have already prosecuted my researches. And so much at least is evident even now — viz., that the sounds proceed not from any external and arbitrary agency — from the intervention, e.g., of any higher will — but from the uniform operation of fixed laws. These laws may be explored by intelligent mice ; and to their exploration I shall devote my life.' Even from this inadequate illustration," continues Dr. Ward, " 5^ou see the general con- clusion which we wish to enforce. A sound has been produced through a certain chain of fixed laws ; but this fact does not tend ever so distantly to establish the conclusion that there is no human pre-movement acting continually at one end of that chain. " Imagination, however, has no limits. We may very easily suppose, therefore, that some instrument is discovered, pro- ducing music immeasurably more heavenly and transporting than that of the pianoforte ; but for that very reason immea- surably more vast in size and more complex in machiner}'. We will call this imaginary instrument a 'polychordon,' as we are not aware that there is any existing claimant of that name. In this polychordon the intermediate links — between the player' s pre-movement on the one hand, and the resulting sound on the other — are no longer two, but two hundred. We further suppose — imagination (as before said) being boundless — that some human being or other is intermittently playing on this polychordon ; but playing on it just what airs may strike his fancy at the moment. Well ; successive generations of philo- sophical mice have actually traced one hundred and fifty of the two hundred phenomenal sequences, through whose fixed and invariable laws the sound is produced. The colony of mice shut up within are in the highest spirits at the success which has crowned the scientific labour of their leading thinkers, and the most eminent of these addresses an assembly : — 268 Appendix. " ' We have long known that the laws of our musical universe are immutably fixed, but we have now discovered a far larger number of those laws than our ancestors could have imagined ca;pable of discovery. Let us redouble our efforts. I fully expect that our grandchildren will be able to predict as accu- rately, for an indefinitely preceding period, the succession of melodies with which we are to be delighted, as we now pre- dict the hours of sunrise and sunset. One thing, at all events, is now absolutely incontrovertible. As to the notion of there being some agency external to the polychordon— intervening with arbitrary and capricious will to produce the sounds we experience — this is a long-exploded superstition ; a mere dream and dotage of the past. The progress of science has put it on one side, and never again can it return to disturb our philosophical progress.' " This parable about the mice, thus elaborated b}^ Dr. Ward, is beautiful and ingenious ; but we are unwilling to commit ourselves to a defence of prayer which practically insists on the recognition of God's immanence and operation in every- thing. Does God leave nothing to His creatures as fellow- workers with Him ? Are we bound to believe, in order to the efficacy of pra3^er, that God really commits nothing to sub- ordinate agents, but is the Agent in every detail Himself? We can understand from such a theory why Dr. Ward binds up the question of miracles with his apology for prayer, and is emphatic in stating his belief in the miraculous as still in operation, at all events within the charmed circle of the Church of Rome. But if prayer is to be successfully de- fended against its assailants it must be kept distinct from the question of miracles ; it must be kept especially distinct from the question of " ecclesiastical miracles," for, as it appears to us, if we cannot show a sphere for it, independently of the miraculous, we may give up the whole battle. While saying thus much in criticism of Dr. Ward's position, we cannot forbear acknowledging the great abilit}' and interest which his essay has thrown around this subject. We have now to ask attention to two apologies for prayer delivered in Trinit}- College, Dublin, —the one by the late Bishop O'Brien, the other by Provost Jellett. Bishop O'Brien's Appe^idix, 269 '* Sermons on Prayer," five in all, were delivered in the years 1836 and 1837. They remained, however, unrevised mitil the Bishop's death, and were published in 1875 just as they were left. They are consequently not as compact in form nor as elaborately finished as they would have been, had the able author of "The Nature and Effects of Faith" been able to give them a final revision. Still the book is valuable in showing in what direction the true solution lies. We do not meet in his book such terms as "conservation of energy"" and "reign of law," which have become current since his time, but we have at least the substance of the current objec- tions given. He puts these into a nutshell when he says, "The only difficulty connected with the subject which is likely much to affect a reasoning mind, arises from regarding prayer as an attempt to settle or to unsettle what is irrevocably fixed, as being the result of causes operating according to immutable laws." * His answer is complete. He makes it plain that the fore- knowledge we ascribe to God is not causal (p. 8) ; it does not interfere with the freedom of the creature ; and he shows that the same argument which is urged against prayer might be urged against action. Ploughing and sowing might be as legitimately objected to on the ground of the prearrangement of all things as prayer, t He goes on further to show that personal influence enters into the midst of the immutable laws and directs them, and so constitutes an instructive analogy for prayerful influence (p. 15). When we see temporal good brought about by intelligent and moral agents, we may well believe in the possibility of the Supreme bringing about temporal or spiritual good in answer to prayer (pp. 19, 20). No amount of sophistr}'', he shows, suffices to make us impractical in the use of means, while it is allowed to endanger our communion with God (pp. },•] , 38). He supposes intermediate spiritual agency, pre- sumably angelic, carrying out the Divine will in answering prayer, while the stability of natural law is in no respect endangered (p. 96). Dr. O'Brien, as we have said, shows us * Page 7. t Pages 10, 34, 37. 2 70 Appendix. at least the direction_in which the. true solution and defence are to be found. Dr. Jellett's book upon "The Efficacy of Prayer" is the most elaborate defence yet furnished in the controversy. Like Dr. Ward's apology already noticed, it is remarkable chiefly for a single beautiful illustration. Dr. Jellett is handling the objection to Divine interference with the arrangements of the universe in answer to prayer as attributing to God the cha- racter of an "unskilful mechanician," and he proceeds to ask, "Is it derogatory to His character to suppose that He has purposes which cannot be effected by any system of mechanism, however perfect ? Is it derogatory to His cha- racter to suppose that He has powers — and uses them — in the government of the universe which cannot be transferred to any system of mere matter, however admirable its arrange- ment might be? How," he continues, " should we decide a similar question in the case of man ? Suppose that it were suddenly revealed to us that the machine of the thirtieth century would have as much power as the man of the nine- teenth. Suppose that we could foresee that our successors of the thirtieth century would be able to construct -a machine capable of doing, unaided, all that we of the nineteenth can do by any means. I suppose we should say that such an achievement indicated an enormous development of the human intellect. But suppose that we were told further, that this machine would do, not only all that we of the nineteenth cen- tury can do, but all that the men of the thirtieth century them- selves could do, and even all that they wished to do. I think that we should call this a very one-sided development of the human intellect ; for it would imply that, while the machine- producing power of the human mind had advanced with pro- digious rapidity, its other powers and — more than that — its aims, had, comparatively, stood still. It is, we generally think, but a poor spirit whose aims do not soar far above its powers. But what should we say of one whose aims rose no higher than the power of a machine which he himself could make ? If we wished to draw an ideal picture of intellectual perfection, should we do so by effacing that superiority of mind which has hitherto rendered so many of its powers Appendix, 2 7 i intransferable to matter ? Shall we regard the possession of these intransferable powers as being itself a mark of imper- fection ? Is the superiority of mind over matter indeed but temporary, and do we look for a day when it shall have passed away for ever ? Nay , , . there is that in the human mind which tells quite another story. There is that in the human mind which bids us look into the future, not with the anticipa- tion that the powers of mind and of matter will ever be equalized, but rather that the inherent superiority of the former will every day become more marked." This analogy Dr. Jellett has little difficulty in applying to God ; and he asks most pertinently, " Shall we call it dero- gatory to the Infinite Spirit, that the marks of His ineffable superiority are ineffaceable even by Him ? Is it unworthy of Him, that even He cannot construct a machine which could replace Himself — that He should have purposes which no system of matter could fulfil? Surely not." * This beautiful illustration is the best thing in Ur. Jellett' s book. But we must in all honesty take exception to his defence in this respect, that it virtually makes out every answer to prayer to be a miracle. "The truth is," says Dr. Jellett, " that to ask God to act at all, and to ask Him to perform a miracle, are one and the same thing." f Now such a statement as this will not, we imagine, be accepted. It endangers the whole system of truth which congregates round prayer, and, as we have seen, there is no necessity to risk the defence of prayer and the present existence of the miraculous together. While, therefore, we acknowledge most gratefully the ability and beauty of much of Dr. Jellett' s book, we must at the same time regard Bishop O'Brien's, notwithstanding its many repetitions, as more distinctly upon the line of real defence. There are several other apologies for prayer to which we can only give a passing reference. Dr. Liddon has an admirable Sermon on Prayer in his Lent Lectures, entitled "Some Elements of Religion." Like all his pulpit efforts, it is thoroughly philosophical, while it rises in some of its * Pages 44-6. t Page 41. 272 Appenaix, passages to the finest eloquence. To M. Bersier's dis- course, " La Priere est-elle efficace ? " published in his fourth volume of Sermons, we have already gratefully referred. Nowhere, in fact, is the defence of prayer more concisely or beautifully stated. Three little manuals have also been issued by the London Christian Evidence Committee, two of them by the Rev. W. H. Karslake, M.A., on "The Theory of Prayer" and "The Efficacy of Prayer," and one of them, better than either of the others, by Rev. Phipps Onslow, B.A., on " The Reasonableness of Prayer." They are all worthy of attentive perusal. In the year 1854 J- Fi'eeman Clarke published " The Christian Doctrine of Prayer." It is the eighth edition, dated 1874, which we possess. In it we find the chief scientific objections carefully refuted. Written from the Unitarian standpoint, it is not as thorough as a Trinitarian can be, but it is an interes'ting and deservedly popular book. Papers have also appeared in the Expositor for 1877, ^^^"^ the pen of Carpus and others, upon some of the aspects of the controversy, which are worthy of attention. Our attention has also been directed to the Swedenborgian contribution to the controversy, and we have perused Mr. Parsons' essay in Deiis-Hojno, " God-maii " ; but we do not feel called upon to refer to it at any length, as his argument and ours have no resemblance. While we write the controversy is being reopened in the N'orth American Review ; but the arguments presented in the number for August, whether for or against prayer's efficacy, do not call for any special reference, after what we have advanced. We conclude by reiterating our obligations to Professor Wallace's able lecture delivered in Belfast, in 1875, on "Prayer in its Relation to Natural Law." But for it, and the encouragement of its author, our present argument would not have been presented to the public. Hazell, Watson, and Viney, Printers, London and Ayksbury. Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries lary Libr Illlll 1 1012 01249 4375 t..^ DATE DUE nn- ^ riii'iiiiii 1 *'?'^^^'**sisillfe«i^ CAYLORD PRINTBOINU S A