Questions on Chapter 3.

parent, causing it to be ever watchful lest it should displease that parent — not from any punishment to itself apprehended as the result, but from a sense of the wickedness of the act of offending one so much admired and loved, and on whom it is so greatly dependent.

This duty is inculcated in the following scriptures: “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil.” Proverbs 8:13. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Psalm 111:10. “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” Ecclesiastes 12, 13. “His mercy is on them that fear him.” Luke 1:50. “Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another; and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.” Malachi 3:16. “Fear God, and give glory to him.” Revelation 14:7.

There are various other duties to God pertaining to the internal disposition and emotions of the heart, such as fidelity, trust, faith, etc.; but as these have been considered in connection with the doctrines of Christianity, we will not here bring up the same topics again. There are yet, however, some duties, under the general head we are now investigating, of a more external character, to which we will call attention in the following chapters. QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 3.

QUESTION 1. In what divisions have writers generally embraced our whole duty?

2. What is important in reference to these divisions?

3. What is the classification on this subject adopted?

4. What is our first duty to God?

5. What is its first element, and what does it imply? What are its second and third, and what do they imply?

6. What is implied in the “fear of God,” and what scriptures enjoin it? CHAPTER 4. — PRAYER — ITS NATURE AND

PROPRIETY.

THIS duty, though generally classed as external, in contradistinction from others more wholly internal, is really both external and internal. As, on the one hand, it is an outward form or external act, so, on the other hand, it is an internal emotion or exercise of the soul. Prayer has been well defined as the “offering up of our desires unto God for things agreeable to his will, in the name or through the mediation of Jesus Christ, by the help of the Holy Spirit, with a confession of our sins, and a thankful acknowledgment of his mercies.”

The leading thought in this definition has been beautifully expressed by the poet, in the following lines:

“Prayer is the soul’s sincere desire,

Uttered or unexpressed;

The motion of a hidden fire

That trembles in the breast.

“Prayer is the burden of a sigh —

The falling of a tear —

The upward glancing of an eye

When none but God is near.”

Prayer, when offered vocally, or in the form of words, is styled an external duty; but even then, unless the proper emotion of the heart accompany the utterance of the language, the most essential element of prayer will be wanting.

I. Before we proceed to the scriptural presentation of this subject, in its different phases, we call attention to THE REASON AND PROPRIETY OF THIS DUTY.

The first, and, with the believer in revelation, the great and all-sufficient reason for this duty is, that God has commanded it. Were we unable to perceive a single ground of propriety in it beyond the mere command of God, that fact alone, with all who acknowledge the truth of revelation, would place the obligation of this duty on as firm a basis as that of any other duty whatever; yet, to skeptical minds, it may be useful, so far as our reason can penetrate, to offer some remarks concerning the propriety of prayer, as intimated by the light of nature.

1. In the first place, it tends to preserve vividly in the mind a recollection of the attributes and general superintendency of God. He who seriously offers prayer to God, must necessarily remember, not only that there is a God, but that he possesses omnipresence, enabling him to hear prayer at all times and places, and omniscience, omnipotence, and infinite goodness, so that he has the wisdom, the power, and the disposition, to answer prayer.

2. The tendency of habitual prayer must be, to divest the mind of that pernicious and infidel notion of confiding alone in secondary causes. It not only contributes to impress us with a sense of our wants and necessities, and our native imbecility and utter inability to help ourselves, but it ever reminds us that He who made the world has not withdrawn his constant care and attention from the production of his creative hand, but that his sustaining and controlling influence is diffused abroad throughout all parts of his creation.

3. Some have attempted to ground the reason and propriety of prayer upon the moral preparation and fitness it is supposed to produce for the reception of the blessings we ask. If by this it be understood that prayer is either the effective instrument or the active agent in producing in the heart that sincere penitence and faith which prepare us for the reception of divine grace in justification, regeneration, and sanctification, or in that salvation which the gospel proposes — if this be the sense of the position, it is not only unscriptural, but involves several absurdities.

It is unscriptural, because repentance, faith, and salvation, are everywhere in Scripture represented, not as being produced by prayer, or any other act of the creature, but by the agency of the Divine Spirit — “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” According to the whole tenor and scope of Scripture, the entire work of salvation, from beginning to end, embracing conviction, conversion, justification, remission of sins, adoption, and sanctification, is of God, and not of ourselves; and all this is effected through the efficient agency of the Holy Spirit, and on the ground of the atoning merits of Christ. Hence, to attribute this influence to prayer, or to the performance of any other Christian duty, however important that duty may be, is to subvert the entire gospel scheme as so fully set forth in the Scripture.

Prayer is a condition enjoined upon us in Scripture, upon the performance of which God has promised to confer upon us certain blessings; but it is not, in the proper sense, either the instrument through which, or the agent by which, those blessings are conferred. Neither the blessing of salvation, in its several stages of conviction, regeneration, etc., nor that humility, penitence, and faith, in which a preparation for the reception of those blessings consists, is conferred by the instrumentality or efficient agency of prayer.

To attribute the blessings in question to the efficacy of prayer, is not only contrary to Scripture, as we have shown, but the theory involves absurdity in itself.

First, it must be admitted that prayer — in order to be acceptable to God, and to render it what it must be, as a condition, on the performance of which God has promised the blessings of salvation — must be offered in penitence and faith. Now, to suppose that this penitence and faith — an essential element of acceptable prayer — result from the act of praying, is absurd. This would imply that we must first possess penitence and faith before we can use the instrument through whose efficacy we gain that possession — which is a palpable contradiction.

But if it be absurd to suppose that we gain a preparation for salvation by the efficacy of prayer, it must be doubly absurd to suppose that we gain salvation itself by that efficacy. Indeed, the theory we here oppose is inconsistent with the very nature of prayer. What is prayer but the offering up by the heart of a petition to God for blessings which we feel that we need, and which we desire him to confer upon us? And how, we demand, can we ask God to bestow upon us those blessings which we expect efficaciously to result from the mere act of asking? If the act of asking works out the blessing, then the idea that the blessing is conferred in answer to the petition is an absurdity, for, according to the theory, the act of praying effectually works out its own answer; and, so far as we can see, this result, according to the theory in question, would be just as effectually reached on the supposition that God did not hear the petition at all. Surely a position so repugnant to Scripture, and so fraught with absurdity, is not to be sanctioned.

We have been the more particular in noticing this theory, because of the manifest favor it has received in certain quarters, and of our conviction of its pernicious tendency. It saps the foundation of all experimental, spiritual influence. Its tendency is to deny the direct agency of the Spirit, and put God out of the world; under the pretense of exalting the duty of prayer to a position of superior importance and influence, it, in reality, renders it an absurdity, and deprives it of all its efficacy.

When we contemplate prayer as a mere condition enjoined by the appointment of God, upon the performing of which he has promised to confer his blessings, its importance and advantages result, not from the fact that it is supposed to possess inherent virtue or direct efficacy conferring, by the mere act of praying, the blessings desired, but from the fact that it looks to a higher Power for assistance, and complies with a condition in connection with the performance of which that assistance has been promised. While prayer, in itself, possesses no inherent virtue or efficacy, yet, by the divine appointment, it is a condition which connects with itself the efficient agency of the Holy Spirit. Thus it is that the prayer of faith can “move the hand that moves the world.”

On the other hand, if, in accordance with the position we have been opposing, the influence of prayer is only to be found in its operation upon the internal principles and emotions of the suppliant, then it follows that, as we rely on this inherent efficacy resulting from the act of praying for the conferring of the blessings desired, of course, we cannot look to God for the impartation of those blessings by the direct agency of his Holy Spirit. Thus, according to this view, the suppliant is working a practical deception upon himself. While, in words, asking God to give him a new heart — to give him faith, hope, charity, humility, peace, joy, etc. — (as though he supposed that God was listening to his voice, and would exert a direct agency in answering his petitions), he is really only looking for that new heart, faith, hope, charity, humility, peace, joy, etc., to spring up within him while praying — not as the result of any direct agency of the Holy Spirit, but as the natural effect of the mere exercise of prayer itself. A man on his knees before God, with these views of the efficacy of prayer, resembles one out upon the water in a boat, with one end of a cable in his hand and the other fastened to the shore. While pulling the cable, he may fancy he is causing the distant shore to approach him, but, in reality, he is approaching the shore, while it remains stationary. Just so, agreeably to this theory, the suppliant, while beseeching God to draw near by his Spirit and bless him as he needs, may imagine that God is hearing and directly answering his prayer; but it is only an illusion: he is drawing nearer to God; and, by the mere act of praying for these blessings, they naturally spring up in his soul. If this view does not render prayer a senseless and solemn mockery, it divests it of its scriptural vitality and power. The absurdity of the theory under review appears, farther, from the fact that we may pray for many blessings which, from their nature, cannot result from the mere internal efficacy of prayer itself. Thus, ye ask for the pardon of sin, which is an act of God which he alone can perform. We ask for our daily food and raiment, for deliverance from danger and affliction, and for a thousand things which the mere act of praying cannot confer. It is true, the act of praying must exert a beneficial influence on the heart; but that this constitutes the ground on which the propriety of this duty rests, or that it is thus alone that answer to prayer is to be expected, is a position manifestly unscriptural, absurd, and injurious.

II. We now notice some of the OBJECTIONS to prayer.

1. An objection to this duty has been founded upon the doctrine of predestination.

It is alleged that, “if all things have been predestinated and foreordained from all eternity, in so absolute and unconditional a sense that nothing can take place differently from what it does, then there can be no propriety in prayer, since nothing can be effected thereby.” We have never seen a consistent answer to this objection without a denial of the doctrine on which it is based; nor do we think it possible, in any other way, to meet it with a satisfactory answer. But, as the doctrine of predestination has been amply considered in our discussion of the “Doctrines of Christianity,” we deem it unnecessary to add any thing farther on the subject in this place. As the Calvinistic view of predestination has been abundantly refuted, the objection in hand of course falls with it.

2. Another objection to prayer is founded on the fact that “God is infinitely wise and good.” It is argued that, “therefore, he will bestow upon us every thing proper for us to possess, without prayer; and that what is not proper for us to possess, he will not give in answer to prayer.” To this it may be replied, that, because God is infinitely wise and good, he may therefore see that it would be proper for him to bestow upon us certain things, in answer to prayer, that it would not be proper for him to bestow, without prayer. Infinite Wisdom and Goodness must take into account all the circumstances bearing upon the case in hand, in order to determine what is fit and proper; and as the character of the individual is a very essential circumstance bearing upon the question as to what is proper to be conferred upon him, and as the fact of his praying or not praying, since God has commanded that duty, may be a very appropriate test of character, it follows that our praying or not praying may properly determine the divine procedure in bestowing or withholding certain blessings.

The principle here involved is beautifully illustrated in the parable of the Talents. The lord of the servants gave to each of the three “according to his several ability.” To one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one. Now, as the lord of these servants distributed to each “according to his several ability,” it is plain that it would have been improper for him to have given two talents to the servant to whom he gave one, or five to him to whom he gave two. And why? Because that would have been bestowing upon them more than they were capable of managing; and, consequently, would have involved a waste which the dictates of wisdom would have avoided. And if the fact of one being able to manage more than another renders it proper to bestow more upon one than upon another, for the same reason it will be proper to vary the amount bestowed upon the same servant, according as his circumstances may change, so as to render him capable of managing more at one time, or under one state of circumstances, than at another time, or under a different state of circumstances. The only question, therefore, to be here considered is this: is the fact of one praying, and another not praying, calculated so to change or vary the circumstances of the two, as to render it proper, according to the dictates of wisdom, to bestow upon one what is withheld from the other?

When it is remembered that God has enjoined the duty of prayer, it must be evident that a refusal to perform that duty implies a spirit of direct rebellion against the divine authority. And since God has connected with the performance of this duty the promise of many desirable blessings, and has connected with its neglect the withholding of those blessings, as well as exposure to many evils, it necessarily follows that a refusal or neglect to perform the duty of prayer evinces a “wicked heart of unbelief.” Now, is it not plain that the dictates of wisdom would require a different administration toward a rebellious, unbelieving servant, from what would be proper in reference to a submissive and confiding one? Our Saviour said: “Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.” To bestow upon a rebellious, wicked, unbelieving sinner, such blessings as would be appropriate for a docile, obedient, and confiding Christian, would be as incongruous and as repugnant to the dictates of wisdom and goodness as to “cast pearls before swine.” From all these considerations, it appears that it may be exceedingly proper and consistent with the divine attributes, for God to bestow, in answer to prayer, what he would otherwise withhold.

The form of this objection is sometimes varied thus: “God,” it is said, “will do whatever is best, whether we pray or not; therefore our praying or not praying cannot affect his administration toward us.” When the objection is presented in this form, we cheerfully admit the premises. To admit that God will do what is best, is only to admit that “the Judge of all the earth will do right;” or, in other words, that “God is too wise to err, and too good to be unkind.” But what has this admission to do with the conclusion in the objection? This conclusion assumes that it never can be best for God to bestow any thing, in answer to prayer, which he would otherwise withhold. It assumes, that what is best under one state of circumstances must be best under all circumstances. The conclusion, in the objection, is as palpable a non sequitur as can be imagined — it does not follow from the premises. The conclusion assumed, in this objection, is what never has been and never can be proved. From the simple position that “God will always do what is best,” it no more follows that, therefore, he will not bestow, in answer to prayer, what he would otherwise withhold, than that he will, in answer to prayer, bestow what he would otherwise withhold. Before any conclusion can logically be drawn on either side, it must be shown what is best under the circumstances. That is the very point in dispute; and it is the point which the objection begs in its own favor, but does not attempt to prove. That it may often be best for God to bestow, in answer to prayer, what it would be best for him, in the absence of prayer, to withhold, must be obvious, from the considerations offered, in answer to the objection in the form previously given. Indeed, the objection, in the two forms just considered, is substantially identical. The only difference is, that, in the latter form, the word best is substituted for the word proper, in the former. In reference to all these objections offered to the duty of prayer, and all others that the ingenuity and wickedness of man can invent, the best answer that can be given is, that the Bible is true. They all grow out of the principles of skepticism. Admit that an infinitely holy, wise, and merciful God, has given us a revelation of his will, and that in that revelation the