Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

change on man's depraved will. And it were strange if it could when he is so often seen acting against a knowledge of duty clear as the sun at mid-day,— clear as the clearest convictions which any evidence from earth, heaven, or hell, can produce upon him. So profoundly true is that saying of Christ,—“If they will not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe though one rose from the dead."

Ponder these things a little, and remember the moral phenomena which the history of man in every age presents; and I fancy you will be slow to pronounce any of the moral portraits of the Bible incredible, however great the moral paradox they may involve. Believe me,

[blocks in formation]

relative, and my dear friend, Mr. W—, that you have become such a "philosopher" as to have discovered the inutility of all "prayer," and that you have resolved to give it up!

Pardon me for saying, that it would have been better if you had given up your "philosophy"—such philosophy, I mean; for it is a "philosophy falsely so called." True philosophy demands no such sacrifice; and I hope, from the regard you have for me, you will at least read with patient attention what I have to say to you.

Philosophy! why, my dear youth, one fact, which, I am told, you acknowledge to be still a puzzle to you, is enough to show

N

that a genuine philosophy, -the philosophy of Bacon,-the philosophy you profess to revere so much,—distinctly condemns your conclusion as utterly unphilosophical. You confess, it seems, that seeing the clear inutility of prayer, from the impossibility of supposing God to contravene the "order of antecedents and consequents," or to infringe His own laws (of all which babble by and by), it is to you a great "puzzle" that the overwhelming majority of the race in all ages,—of philosophers and peasants,—of geniuses and blockheads, of the refined and the vulgar,- the bulk even of those who plead for the doctrine of "moral necessity" itself, -have contended for the propriety, the efficacy, the necessity of prayer! that man, in trouble, seems naturally to resort to it! that, for the most part, it is only in prosperity that those who deny its value can afford to do so; that when they come to a scene of distress, or a deathbed, even they, in the greater number of cases, break out, if they believe, as you do, in a presiding deity at all, — into cries for help, and supplications for mercy; just as naturally as they weep when sorrowful, or rejoice when happy!

-

You call these facts a puzzle; they seem a curious example of human "inconsistency," of the tardiness of man to embrace a genuine philosophy! Ha! ha! ha!

[ocr errors]

I fancy there is another explanation that smacks a little more of a genuine philosophy. Surely, if the great bulk of mankind, all their lives long, whimsically admit in theory the propriety and efficacy of prayer, even while they daily neglect it in practice,if multitudes, who would like very well to have a burdensome and unwelcome duty which they neglect, proved to be no duty at all, are still invincibly convinced that it is such,—must not a genuine inductive philosophy confess that such a concurrence of wise and vulgar, of philosophy and instinct, and all too against seeming interest and strong passions,—is an indication that the constitution of human nature itself favours the hypothesis of the efficacy and propriety of prayer?—and, if so, ought not that to be taken into account in your philosophy? I contend that it is decisive of the controversy, if you are really to philosophise on the matter at all. Meantime, it seems, you account it merely a great puzzle,

amidst that clear demonstration you have, of the inutility and absurdity of prayer!

If you say, "I have confessed it is a puzzle; what does it prove?"-I answer, "Prove? my fine fellow; why it proves this, that the fact which ought to determine your philosophy on this question is against you. Yes;-the fact which a Bacon would take principally into account, utterly refutes you. Stick fairly to your induction, and I will give you leave to infer as long as you will. The facts you call a 'puzzle' prove that the normal constitution of human nature pleads, distinctly, both for the propriety and efficacy of prayer. Such facts say as plainly of man, he was made to do this or that, it is his nature to do this or that, as the fire to burn or the sun to shine."

If you say, as you do say, "But I cannot account for the efficacy of prayer with my belief of unvarying laws,' or reconcile. the practice with my philosophy," the true Baconian answers, “And who asks you to reconcile, in all cases, observed facts with other observed facts, or with supposed consequences from them? The question with me is as to the facts, and not as to their reconciliation with other facts which I may or may not be able to effect. There are many observed facts in all departments of science which I know not how to reconcile with others; but I have nothing to do with that; I have to do with the facts, and a just induction from them." So far from your objection being reasonable, one of the plagues of philosophy is, that men, while they profess reverence for Bacon, will thus perpetually forget his maxims; and, when they do so, never fail to poison science by making their reception of facts depend on their hypotheses for reconciling them!

Do you not see, then, that if the facts of the case be, what I contend and you concede them to be, you in ignoring them and calling them a "puzzle," so far from being the Baconian you boast, are rather imitating the "schoolmen " whom he derides, pooh-poohing and passing by facts because you deem them irreconcilable with other facts or presumed facts? If facts, your

duty, as a Baconian, is to receive them into your philosophy, even though they be by you utterly irreconcilable.

And do you not also see that your difficulty may be retorted on you? Ought you not to confess to two "puzzles" instead of one? Is it not irreconcilable with your theory, as a Theist, that an infinitely wise Being should have so constituted human nature that man is prompted to the exercise of prayer, and usually acknowledges its duty and propriety even while he neglects it, while yet prayer has no significance in the world, and is a senseless mockery of the Deity, who nevertheless, it seems, has necessitated it'? If you will not have any philosophy of facts (which is Bacon's philosophy) till you can reconcile them, be pleased to reconcile this caprice of God in the constitution of human nature with your "unvarying laws," which tell you that prayer is mockery and folly.

Will it not sound odd to say that God has instituted "unvarying laws," which render all prayer to Him absurd and inefficacious, and yet has bestowed upon man such a nature that he is normally impelled to offer prayer, and even when he does not, to acknowledge its propriety and efficacy, while yet it is an essential absurdity? I beseech you to apply your philosophy of induction impartially. If you would but reason in the present case as you would with the Atheist on the question of Theism, you would see how illogical was your conclusion. Against him, I know you would argue that the normal tendency of man to admit a Deity of some kind, and to manufacture a thousand rather than be without one, is, in your estimation, a strong indication of there being a Deity, and of this religious tendency in our nature being bestowed by Him; but, whether originating with Chance or God, you would reasonably argue that it is a proof of the religious nature of man, and that, as all your philosophy must be founded on that nature such as it is, and not as it is not, we must acquiesce in the conclusion that there is a Deity, though there be none. You would also, perhaps, say that, for that very reason, the enterprise of Atheism to eradicate this notion from men's minds must be utterly futile; and if asked why, you would say that, whether

there be a God or not, fact shows that it is the constitution of human nature to believe in one, even though there be none. Apply a similar argument to this subject of prayer, and I fancy you will find it tolerably parallel. But you are still more unreasonable in your position than the Atheist in his. The Atheist in the parallel case might still have to utter a little apologetic nonsense, from which you would be debarred. He might say, "Well, admitting it to be a principle of our nature that men will believe in a God, and that therefore I shan't be able to eradicate it, it may have been implanted by that Chance which has already done so many other wonderful things!" But as to you, no such

doughty machina as Chance is at your beck; if you admit that the impulse to "prayer," and belief in its propriety and necessity, is a normal fact in the constitution of humanity,—that it is the spontaneous conclusion of unsophisticated reason and feeling,you, with your views of an Allwise Fabricator of man's nature, cannot resort to any similar hypothesis. All this I have said, because you admit the fact adverted to; and I say that instead of calling it a "puzzle," and sitting down content with that, you are bound to take it into your philosophy. Now if you do so, I think you will have as insoluble a problem as that supposed "incompatibility of prayer with general laws," which induces you to reject all prayer ;-namely, an "unvarying law" within man which prompts him to pray, and "unvarying laws," without, which inform him, it appears, that he will always pray to no purpose!

But this letter has grown to a greater length than I intended; if I conclude it here, do not suppose that I am going to leave your soi-disant "philosophy" unassailed. I say, indeed, that the general facts I have insisted on, established by induction, ought to induce you to recant your opinion; but, quite apart from that, I deem it shallow, and, in another letter, will endeavour to prove

it so.

Your sincere friend,

R. E. H. G.

« AnteriorContinuar »