Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Bards of the mountain and the grove,

Who yet wrung lessons from the age;

Trim charioteers, as ever drove

Fair Fancy's gaudy equipage:

They sleep together, side by side;

And as they sleep, so lived they long;
Two friends, whom nothing could divide,
Two singers, joining hand and song.

[blocks in formation]

THE prayer appointed for use in our churches with reference to the cattle plague and the cholera, appears to have fallen upon a susceptible state of the public mind like a spark upon tinder. It is evident that many thoughtful persons have been much exercised in mind by questions relating to prayer. Not unwilling to pray, they have shrunk from praying blindly. They have wished to feel assured that they could pray reasonably, and without stultifying convictions upon which a main part of their life is built up. Old difficulties and perplexities about prayer have revived, and have assumed what has appeared for the time a more formidable aspect. And whilst these anxieties have been stirring in the minds of the thoughtful, that portion of the religious world which is not troubled by doubts has been disposed to push the use of prayer with a certain importunity, and in a spirit of latent, if not professed, antagonism. There are always people ready to seize with eagerness what they regard as an opportunity "to rebuke the infidel notions of the day." Most likely a strong and early pressure was brought to bear upon the Archbishop and the Ministry to induce them to appoint a public prayer against the cattle plague. "What are the clergy and the authorities doing," I was asked, "that we have no prayer issued for deliverance from the cattle plague ?" I expressed a doubt whether the calamity had reached a magnitude which called for so special an act. "Oh, but," the answer was, "it is so important to take these things in time!" The appointment of a prayer which was to be looked to as a kind of mechanical prophylactic did not seem to me a thing much to be desired; and probably a similar distaste was similarly excited in others. When the prayer

felicitous, but it was not unlike other prayers of the same kind. It was welcome, I fully believe, to a large number of pious persons, who had been very much alarmed by the reports of the disease, and who thought it right that we should publicly deprecate the terrible visitation which had begun to afflict us. But, on the other hand, it excited an almost angry outburst of protest and criticism.

Fault was found with details of the prayer, in a tone which shewed plainly that those who found it disliked the whole before they quarrelled with the parts. Then followed reflection and questioning. "If this prayer is wrong, what kind of prayer is right?". Objections have been gravely and even reverently raised; attempts have been made to meet those objections. Laymen have come forward to say that, while they felt that some ordinary kinds of prayer could not be defended in the face of science, and must be abandoned, they yet could not consent to give up prayer altogether. Reasons have been given for discriminating between one kind of prayer and another; and it has also been seen, as in common in similar cases, that those who have given up certain beliefs in deference to argument, think they have thereby purchased a right to live unmolested by argument in what they retain.

Every one is aware of the ground upon which prayer is commonly objected to at the present time. The uniformity of nature, it is said, makes it impossible that any prayers having for their object a variation in the course of nature should be effectual. The laws of nature, according to all true observation, are constant. There is no greater or less in the matter. To ask that a single drop of rain may fall, is as contradictory to science as to ask that the law of gravi

fore, having reference to anything which comes within the domain of natural laws, is forbidden by modern science.

It would be the rashness of mere ignorance and folly to enter the lists against science, or against that principle of the uniformity of nature which is at once the foundation and the crowning discovery of science. Science has been so victorious of late years, and has been adding so constantly to the strength of its main positions, that it is scarcely safe to doubt anything which is affirmed by cautious and scientific men as a fact within their own domain. But when, from the proper and recognised conclusions of science, inferences are drawn which affect the spiritual life, and threaten destruction to what we have been accustomed to regard as most precious, it cannot be complained of if we scrutinize those inferences carefully. If there is a region of genuine mystery, into which the science of phenomena is pushing forward its methods too confidently, it may be forced to retire, not indeed by spiritual intimidation, but by the opposition of realities to which it is self-compelled to pay respect.

Now the affirmation of the uniformity of nature, when pressed logically against the utility of prayer, seems to me either to prove too much or to prove nothing. We may be permitted to ask this question, Does the constancy of the laws of nature imply that the course of nature is absolutely fixed, or not?

It is surely conceivable that the negative answer might be given to this question. For the experience of every hour, of every minute, seems to show, that the actual course of nature may be altered without the slightest interference with any law of nature. Shall I blow out the candle before me, or not? It seems to me that I may do it or refrain from doing it as I please. In either case, no law of nature is violated. In either case, interminable consequences follow my choice. The whole course of nature will be different if I do it from what it would be if I did not do it. The voyage of discovery of Christopher

within the domain of human choice. He might not have sailed; he did sail; and what prodigious results have followed, in the ordinary course of nature, as we say, from his enterprise! If this variableness of the course of nature be admitted, it is clear that the constancy of natural laws interposes no obstacle to an efficacy of prayer without limit. There may be other reasons why human prayer should not avail to change the course of nature, but the absolute inviolability of law will not be a reason. For, in the first place, prayer may be conceived as taking effect through human wills. In a vast proportion of cases, the objects for which we have prayed might be accomplished through human agency. The cattle plague might be neutralized by the discovery of a remedy, by the adoption of hitherto neglected sanitary precautions, and by other means which ingenuity might imagine as operating through the minds of men. If any persons have a conviction that our praying could not lead to any quickening of human intelligence, or to any invigoration of human effort, they would hardly express that conviction by saying that the laws of external nature are too constant to allow it. With regard to all that may be done through human volition, the existence of fixed laws of nature is manifestly no hindrance to its being done.

The interference of mind and will with the course of nature is no doubt more intelligible to us as taking place. through human action, than if we transcend human action. But we are now speaking of possibility, in a strict logical sense. And, although we are entirely ignorant how the Creator can change the course of nature otherwise than through man, it seems clearly unreasonable to affirm that such other interference is impossible, because we know nothing about it. If there are invisible beings in the universe, why should they not have some power of acting upon the course of nature? So far as analogy is any guide, the fact that we, by our volitions, can alter the course of things

presumption that the same thing can be done in other ways of which science simply knows nothing, and about which imagination cannot with much advantage exercise its power of conjecture. It is conceivable therefore that prayer relating to definite physical ends might be answered, without the appearance of the slightest departure from the ordinary course of nature.

If, then, the constancy of natural laws be so interpreted as to admit of indefinite variations, through free volition, of the course of nature, that constancy proves nothing against prayer.

If, however, it be interpreted to mean that by the operation of cause and effect the course of nature is so fixed that no change in accordance with human thought or desire can possibly take place in it, the argument proves too much. If the tremendous doctrine of necessity be called in at all, it is unscientific to apply it partially. If in the face of a fixed and necessary course of things prayer becomes an absurdity, how much else becomes absurd also! Everything properly human ceases to be rational, till we are reduced to the deadest fatalism. If a philosopher says to me, "How can you think that by your prayers you can divert universal nature from its preordained course?" I think I reply rationally by asking, "How can I suppose that by any acts of mine, any more than by any prayers, I can alter the unalterable?" If the assertion, "It is of no use to pray against the cattledisease or the cholera," be based upon the fact that effect follows cause with unvarying uniformity, the same reason would lead us on to the further assertion, "It is of no use to do anything against the cattle-disease or the cholera."

Let us consider what will have to be given up, if prayer for physical benefits be condemned on the ground of the uniformity of nature. Prayer for spiritual blessings can hardly be retained. Are not spiritual things mixed up inextricably with physical? Spirit acts upon outward things; outward things act upon the spirit. Fever is raging in a swampy

Can

duty to try and subdue it, and learning that he might probably do so by draining it, cuts a drain. The place becomes wholesome. Then the moral tone of the population also rises. The children become brighter, more intelligent, more moral. A great spiritual gain is secured, by the enlightenment of one man acting through a physical improvement. it be said that visible things are subject. to law, spiritual things to no law? Neither the philosopher nor the Christian could acquiesce for a moment in such a distinction. If, then, a mother is forbidden, by reason, to pray for the restoration to health of her child, can she reasonably pray that it may grow up wise and virtuous? Again, thanksgiving appears to be correlative to prayer. If we are to regard everything that happens as a fixed by a predetermined order, we shall be bound to repress all special promptings to gratitude. There may remain perhaps a certain sense of admiration of the course of things as a whole,

modified, one would expect, by a good deal of dissatisfaction,-but what we commonly mean by thanksgiving must disappear. Again, deliberate effort to accomplish any end is stultified. If a man were betrayed into it by the singular instinct which haunts us, the recollection of the true philosophy would make him smile at himself as a fool. And lastly, he would learn to be ashamed of desire and hope. Only those who have not been taught the unalterableness of the course of things can be weak enough to indulge a wish or a hope concerning the future. What will be will be and there is an end of it. Motives, aims, hopes, may be included as blind instincts in the great scheme, but they cannot be properly rational; they cannot justify themselves to the enlightened understanding. They must share the fate of prayer. They are instinctiveso is prayer. Prayer is not rational-no more are they.

It would seem, then, that the unalterableness of nature, if it is allowed to condemn prayer, must go on to extinguish everything that we call human.

fore, having reference to anything which comes within the domain of natural laws, is forbidden by modern science.

It would be the rashness of mere ignorance and folly to enter the lists against science, or against that principle of the uniformity of nature which is at once the foundation and the crowning discovery of science. Science has been so victorious of late years, and has been adding so constantly to the strength of its main positions, that it is scarcely safe to doubt anything which is affirmed by cautious and scientific men as a fact within their own domain. But when, from the proper and recognised conclusions of science, inferences are drawn which affect the spiritual life, and threaten destruction to what we have been accustomed to regard as most precious, it cannot be complained of if we scrutinize those inferences carefully. If there is a region of genuine mystery, into which the science of phenomena is pushing forward its methods too confidently, it may be forced to retire, not indeed by spiritual intimidation, but by the opposition of realities to which it is self-compelled to pay respect.

Now the affirmation of the uniformity of nature, when pressed logically against the utility of prayer, seems to me either to prove too much or to prove nothing. We may be permitted to ask this question, Does the constancy of the laws of nature imply that the course of nature is absolutely fired, or not?

It is surely conceivable that the negative answer might be given to this question. For the experience of every hour, of every minute, seems to show, that the actual course of nature may be altered without the slightest interference with any law of nature. Shall I blow out the candle before me, or not? It seems to me that I may do it or refrain from doing it as I please. In either case, no law of nature is violated. In either case, interminable consequences follow my choice. The whole course of nature will be different if I do it from what it would be if I did not do it. The voyage of discovery of Christopher

within the domain of human choice. He might not have sailed; he did sail; and what prodigious results have followed, in the ordinary course of nature, as we say, from his enterprise! If this variableness of the course of nature be admitted, it is clear that the constancy of natural laws interposes no obstacle to an efficacy of prayer without limit. There may be other reasons why human prayer should not avail to change the course of nature, but the absolute inviolability of law will not be a reason. For, in the first place, prayer may be conceived as taking effect through human wills. wills. In a vast proportion of cases, the objects for which we have prayed might be accomplished through human agency. The cattle plague might be neutralized by the discovery of a remedy, by the adoption of hitherto neglected sanitary precautions, and by other means which ingenuity might imagine as operating through the minds of men. If any persons have a conviction that our praying could not lead to any quickening of human intelligence, or to any invigoration of human effort, they would hardly express that conviction by saying that the laws of external nature are too constant to allow it. With regard to all that may be done through human volition, the existence of fixed laws of nature is manifestly no hindrance to its being done.

The interference of mind and will with the course of nature is no doubt more intelligible to us as taking place through human action, than if we transcend human action. But we are now speaking of possibility, in a strict logical sense. And, although we are entirely ignorant how the Creator can change the course of nature otherwise than through man, it seems clearly unreasonable to affirm that such other interference is impossible, because we know nothing about it. If there are invisible beings in the universe, why should they not have some power of acting upon the course of nature ? So far as analogy is any guide, the fact that we, by our volitions, can alter the course of things

« PreviousContinue »