Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-03-13

| But according 10 the modern SclenIlnC
idea of law, all such prayers useless. We
know, it is said, that the death of an In
dividual is the result of physiological laws
which absolutely determine it; that a
| plague or pestilence is the Inevitable conse-
quence of an Infringement Of certain organ
ic laws. The idea that pestilence or the
death of man are contingent upon the
| Divine will is unsatisfied, and belongs to
the old school of theology. According to
the advanced school of science, all the phe-
nomena Of the immense, physical, vital,
Omencal, are to be referred TO certain laws
or an intelligent physical forces; and its
fundamental megation is, that there is no
such objective unity as mind or spirit. The
supernatural element is ignored; and the
intersection of will is necessarily excluded,
because philosophy, at least postiyism, is
nothing unless il secures the power of pro-
vision.
In our age this error extensively pre-
walls. Effects that men at one time attrib-
uted to the agency of God are now explain
ed by physical cause and physical sequence,
so that we are told to turn to science, where
once we turned to God, to collect, classify
and reason upon the phenomena Of nature,
and by doing this we are certain to avert
disease, sickness and pestilence. Instead
Of praying for rain, We are to study the
science of meteorology, and so hence the
forces of nature as much as possible under
our control. Instead Of praying to God to
avert pestilence from our coast, the modern
school of scientific man tells us to study
the laws of health, to create social SCI
ence, and prosecute sanitary reform.
No doubt that much of what they say is
true. Science is beneficial and important.
By all means, let us study science and ap-
ply sanitary principles: in other words, let
us not neglect due and proper attention
10 the use of means; but having done this,
let us not suppose that we can dispense
with the upernatural-with such agen-
cieS as those Of prayer and faith. To
pray for rain, or for the removal of pesti-
lence or sickness, is Just as reasonable as
to pray for any spiritual blessing, such as
pardon or faith. All such prayers pre-sup-
pose the truth that all the laws of
nature are under the control of the
Lawgiver-Inder the superintence Of a
Supreme Intelligence; that He does not in
fringe, counteract, or set aside the fixed
uniformity Of the laws of nature, but
simply that He controls them, and causes
NAACA4 " l4OuNAlC hlA4ACNCA Nli-Nto liz SCCS
fit; and that law is only one way of con-
ceiving of His regJIlariZed working, and
not an external force which governs and
moulds what we recognize as His work.
Nothing short of this will suffice for the
explanation of the Divine government, Oh
for the satisfaction of the human mind.
The question as TO the efficacy of prayer
is one which has of late been somewhat
of physical science. 1t is openly and IN
hesitatingly affirmed that prayer has no
value as a power in physical nature-in
other words, that physical nature is not the
legitimate domain Of prayer. In order to
bring this to test, it has been proposed to
reduce the theory of Gods accessibility to
prayer to an experiment. The region of
theory" says Prof. Tyndall, ''bOth in science
and theology, lies behind the world of the
senses, hut the verification of theory occurs
in the sensible world" To check the theO-
~ we have simply TO compare the deduc-
tiOnS from it with the facts Of observation.
If the deductions be in accordance with the
facts, We accept the theory; if in opposition,
the theory is given up. 4 single expert
ment is frequently devised by which the
theory must stand or fall. OF this charac-
ter was the determination of the velocity Of
light in liquids as a certain test of the
Emission theory. According to Newton,
light travelled faster in water than in air;
according to an experiment suggested by
Arago, and executed by Fiaence and FOu-
cault, it travelled faster in air than in
water. The experiment was conclusive
against NewtOn's theory
And then Prof. Tyndall proceeds to ap-
ply, in similar way, crucial test to the
efficacy Of prayer. As single experiment
in science establishes theory, so we must
have, in the spiritual realm, the same kind
Of evidence to test the value of prayer. 1t
has been accordingly proposed to institute
prayer-gauge to calculate the cumulative
measurement of Gods accessibility to
prayer; in other words, to prove the efficacy
of prayer by definite experimental tests.
With all possible Difference to the cOnclu-
siOns Of such men of science, we feel our
selves bound TO object to the proposed ex-
perimental test as not being, in any event,
conclusive of the subject in dispute.
In the first place, it violates the first
principles Of the science of prayer. There
is, as has been said, "a science of prayer"
as well as a science of physical nature. In
the science of prayer, as in other sciences,
there are certain principles laid down for
our guidance, and certain conditions which
must be complied with; and surely no
scientist would expect an experiment to
succeed unless the preliminary conditions
were fulfilled.
Now, one of these conditions is, that
prayer be made in spirit of reverent be-
lief in the existence of personal God, to
whom it is addressed. 1t assumes that
there is a self-existent, moral being, the
Creator of all things, whose will is SUI
preme. 1t assumes that man, made by
Him, was made for moral ends, and that
he finds in communion with God the high
est spiritual good. 1t assumes that prayer
springs from the very nature of this rela-
tiOn, as the expression of reverence,
homage and need. But those who have
issued the proposal of a prayer-teXt, if they
do not openly and absolutely deny the ex-
istence of God, begin by challenging God
to prove His own existence, and then
cOvertly to sneer at the idea OF an oyerTul-
ing or experimenting Providence; and,
further, they base their. proposal on an an
tecedent doubt of the power and willing
ness of God TO answer certain kinds of
prayer.
Another condition of acceptable prayer
is, that it be presented In an humble, rev.
erent spirit, and that our petitions be in
harmony with the Divine will. But in
accepting the proposed scientific test, We
come before God in a dictatorial spirit.
Our prayer-if prayer it can be called-is
reduced TO sort of petty dictation to God
the effect Of which is TO be measured by
the influence it will exert on the issue.
Now there is something simply revolving
to the spirit Of true Christian prayer in the
proposal to gauge indirectly the divine
susceptibility to prayer. Christians in
stinctiyely shrink from such an attempt.
Certainly an age OF science is not an
age Of .s;erenee. We are commando d
TO pray wIih faith, with knowledge, with
hope, and above all, with humility; and we
expect God to grant us what We pray for,
only so far as it may be agreeable to His
will and our own good. We pray for fruit
full seasons, because it is clearly His will
that we be fed from the fruits of the earth.
But We do not pray that we should live
without food, or that God should restore
the dead TO life, because such requests are
not in harmony with His will. We pray
for health, for protection, for success, and
for the peace and prosperity of nations, sub
iect to the Divine will; but We do not pray
thatiwater may:;ran uphill, because-as
contemporary Review, October, 1s72, p. 7G5