Problems of Immanence Part 10

That is really the crux of the whole matter; prayer must be conceived as an active intercourse between the wors.h.i.+pper and a Person other than himself, who is the object of his wors.h.i.+p. It is not a soliloquy--what the Germans expressively call a _Selbstgesprach_, or "self-talk"; it is not a monologue, but a dialogue; it is not a mere contemplation, but addressed to Someone who is thought of as willing to listen and able to answer. As Sabatier has well said, "_Prayer is religion in act; that is, prayer is real religion_." Wherever men believe in a personal G.o.d, as distinct from an "all-inclusive consciousness of being" of which they are fleeting expressions--mere surface ripples on an infinite ocean--that belief will attest itself by the prayerful life. On the other hand, a prayerless religion is a contradiction in terms; it either has no needs to express or {196} it will die from lack of self-expression. The believer will pray from a sense of inner necessity, coupled with the instinctive a.s.surance that the need of which he is conscious will thus, and thus only, meet with its satisfaction. "The genuineness of religion"--to quote Professor William James--"is thus indissolubly bound up with the question whether the prayerful consciousness be or be not deceitful. The conviction that something is genuinely transacted in this consciousness is the very core of living religion." [3]

Is there, then, or is there not, something "genuinely transacted" in the experience of prayer? A transaction, _ex hypothesi_, can only take place between two parties; it implies two volitional centres. And, furthermore, what is it that is transacted? Is prayer only a very n.o.ble form of auto-suggestion--are its effects merely subjective, or are they also objective? These are problems which could hardly be said to exist for an earlier age; to the modern mind they are intensely real, and press for answers. It must be recognised at once that the idea of G.o.d as immanent in nature, expressing Himself in those observed uniformities to which we give the name of natural laws, creates difficulties of its own in regard to this subject; for if these laws show forth His will, is it even thinkable that our formulated desires could move Him to depart from what we might speak of as His original {197} intention? His will is either the absolutely best or it is not; if it is, why pray that He may modify it? If it is not, is He not less than perfectly good, since His design admits of improvement? Can we conceive of Him as doing something in answer to a human pet.i.tion which He would not do apart from such a pet.i.tion? Can we think of Him as being prevailed upon by our a.s.siduities and importunities to alter His decrees--is not this whole notion rather paltry and derogatory to His dignity? Everybody is familiar with these questions and arguments; let us see in what proportion truth and error are combined in them.

(1) A good deal of unnecessary difficulty arises in the first place from the habitual failure of many people to bear in mind that though G.o.d is immanent in the cosmos, He is not _only_ immanent; as soon as His transcendence is realised, it is seen that there exists no _a priori_ reason against the possibility of what from our point of view would look like Divine interpositions in the ordinary course of nature. We have, it must be remembered, not the slightest grounds for a.s.suming that there can be no departures from the uniformities of nature, nor are we in a position to state dogmatically that no imaginable conditions would ever furnish an adequate reason for such a departure. Admitting that the regular processes observed in the physical universe represent something of the Divine mode of action, we have no {198} warrant for maintaining that these are the only modes of such action; probability, in effect, is all the other way. "Lo, these are but the outskirts of His ways; and how small a whisper do we hear of Him! _But the thunder of His power who can understand?_" A transcendent G.o.d is _eo ipso_ not limited to such methods as we happen to have caught a glimpse or a whisper of.

(2) But when this is clearly understood, it has on the other hand to be as frankly admitted--indeed, it is stating the obvious to say--that in modern times the idea of the uniformity of nature has obtained such a hold upon the general educated mind as renders any breach of that order far more improbable to us than it could have appeared to a pre-scientific generation. All physical science rests, broadly speaking, upon the a.s.sumption that nature acts uniformly; without saying that it must be so, we are well a.s.sured that it is so, because all observation and experiment are found to bear out the truth of the principle we have a.s.sumed. All we have learned concerning nature excludes the notion that there is anything haphazard or arbitrary in her ways. We do not feel at all as though the action of natural forces might be suspended or modified for our particular benefit, and hence certain ideas of the efficacy of prayer--_e.g._, for rain or fine weather--have become impossible for us to entertain with the ease of our ancestors. We start with a mental att.i.tude--hardly {199} to be called a prejudice, since it is based upon a large body of experience--of profound a.s.surance that in matters like these the will of G.o.d finds its expression in the unbroken operation of His ordinary laws, "without variableness or shadow of turning"; most people, moreover, would acknowledge that it is better that these laws should be stable and capable of being learned and depended upon than that the Divine will should be incalculable--_ondoyant et divers_--a matter of moods on His side and of importunity on ours. Tennyson's familiar lines represent the typically modern outlook with the utmost accuracy and conciseness:--

G.o.d is Law, say the wise; O soul, and let us rejoice[1]

For if He thunder by law, the thunder is yet His Voice.

(3) And while the scientific temper of the present day could not fail to affect our thoughts concerning prayer in some directions, the same has surely to be said about the ethical temper of the age, as shown in our enlarged conceptions of G.o.d. To put it bluntly, much of the language about what used to be called "special providences" has become unreal and ceased to be edifying for us. On this whole subject some words of Princ.i.p.al Adeney's can hardly be bettered:--

Under the old theory G.o.d had His favourites who were saved by hair-breadth escapes, in accidents that were fatal to persons who were not the objects of "special providences"; this was supposed to account for the fact that one man in particular found that somebody else {200} had taken the last berth in the s.h.i.+p he had meant to sail by, and so escaped the fate of the crew and pa.s.sengers when it went down with all on board--no "special providence" saving them. It looks like a reflection of the pagan mythological tales about heroes rescued by the timely interference of G.o.ds and G.o.ddesses in battles where thousands of common mortals perish unheeded. It is the aristocratic idea of privilege carried up to religion. The newer view is more democratic, and it seems to agree better with our Lord's a.s.surance that not a sparrow falls to the ground without our Father's notice, that the very hairs of our heads are all numbered.[4]

All this has its direct bearing upon the subject of prayer. We may still be occasionally regaled with stories of one solitary sailor being saved--Providence looking after him in response to his mother's pet.i.tions--while every other soul on board was drowned; but these narratives, once irresistible in the impression they created, are to-day received with somewhat mixed feelings. The view of G.o.d's character which they inculcate is apt to strike us as unsatisfactory; that He should avert a great and presumedly unmerited physical calamity from one individual simply and solely because He has been asked to do so by some other individual, while allowing the same calamity to overtake numerous others no more deserving of affliction, does not fit in with our conception of Him. We are slowly learning to subst.i.tute for the notion of any kind of preferential treatment at the hand of G.o.d a belief in the unchanging goodness of His decrees, in the wisdom of His counsel, {201} and in the reality of His abiding and enfolding love; by Providence we mean something that is neither local nor personal, nor particular, but universal--the Providence of unchanging law--that living and loving Will which "knoweth altogether."

(4) But if, owing to such considerations as these, we are less inclined to-day to frame certain kinds of pet.i.tion, or to expect them to be answered, it is also true that we are increasingly coming to re-discover what should never have been forgotten, _viz._, that pet.i.tion is not the whole but only a part, and perhaps a subordinate part, of prayer. A glance at our Lord's priceless bequest to humanity, the Model Prayer, should suffice to place this beyond a doubt. If we study it clause by clause, we find that the first place is a.s.signed simply to _adoration_, and the claiming of the supreme privilege of spiritual communion, with an implicit, although not explicit, _thanksgiving_ for that privilege; next we find two clauses expressive of _aspiration_ for the achievement of the highest aims, with the implied vow to help on their realisation by our own conduct and efforts; and not until then do we come upon a _supplication_, which moreover prays only for the simplest of material blessings--for bare sustenance, in fact. This is followed by _confession_, with a prayer for mercy, and a promise to show ourselves merciful to our brethren; and a prayer for deliverance {202} and guidance brings us to the final act of _praise_. Thus, with one most modest exception, the blessings which G.o.d is asked to bestow are spiritual blessings; for a pet.i.tion asking, _e.g._, that the operation of some natural law may be temporarily suspended for our benefit we should look altogether in vain. In any case we ought to learn from the one prayer which our Lord expressly taught His disciples to give to mere pet.i.tion a much less prominent place than it usually occupies; adoration, confession and thanksgiving should between them take the predominant share in our communion with the Most High, thus correcting the tendency to make of prayer a mere recital of wants more or less indiscriminately addressed to the Divine bounty. The supreme object to be kept in view is that we should become of G.o.d's way of thinking--not that we should attempt to make Him of ours; in Matthew Henry's shrewd comparison, prayer is like the boat-hook, which brings the boat to the land, not the land to the boat.

But when we have clarified our ideas on the subject to this extent, we must once more face the question suggested by Professor James--_What is it that is transacted_? The effect of prayer upon those who offer it is too well-attested to be called into doubt; what we have to ask ourselves, however, is whether those effects are, in the strict sense of the term, purely "subjective," _i.e._, as we {203} previously expressed it, in the nature of a n.o.ble auto-suggestion. The answer to that query must in the last resort be determined by our thought concerning G.o.d and our relation to Him. Let it be said once more: if, with the pantheist, we a.s.sume that we are essentially and inalienably one with the All--part of It, as the bay is of the ocean--prayer, as the theist understands it, is a self-contradiction; if offered at all, it will be, not the establishment of a relation which is _ex hypothesi_ always in being, but at most a clearer realisation by the particle of its fundamental ident.i.ty with the Whole. Prayer is founded upon the belief that the Deity is at least interested in His wors.h.i.+pper--or else, why speak to the Unheeding? But Spinozism distinctly denies the possibility of G.o.d's entertaining any feelings towards individuals--indeed, Spinoza condemns the individual's desire for G.o.d's personal love; at most he will admit that "'G.o.d, inasmuch as He loves Himself, loves men,' because men are parts and proportions of G.o.d. . . The complacency of the Universe in its self-awareness, the love of G.o.d towards Himself, as Spinoza has it, includes us in its embrace, and that is enough." [5] We reply that this "complacency of the Universe in its self-awareness" may be enough for Spinozists; but it is not enough to move men to prayer--and this is borne out by Mr. Picton's total silence on this {204} topic in his exposition of his Master's doctrine. Mr. Chesterton, with his usual felicity of phrase, hits the nail on the head when he says that upon this principle "the whole cosmos is only one enormously selfish person;" certainly it should be clear that on this a.s.sumption, as there can be no return of affection from a G.o.d whose love is only self-love, so the effect of prayer can only be that which is produced upon the soul by its consciousness--supposed to be elevating--of being an infinitesimal fraction of an infinite totality. We say that this consciousness is supposed to be elevating, though why it should be so is not quite apparent; for whatever this heterogeneous sum-total of existences may be, it is not, in our sense of the term, _good_, as the G.o.d of Christianity is good.

But if, instead of losing ourselves in the fog-land of Pantheism, Theosophy and their unavowed congeners, we take our stand upon the firm belief in the otherness of G.o.d, the case alters altogether. Prayer at once becomes rational instead of being a contradiction in terms; it is the accomplishment of something which is not already accomplished; it springs from the consciousness of a spiritual need, it is born of the instinct of spiritual self-preservation. It sets up a connection between two centres--man and G.o.d--which can only be connected because of a fundamental likeness subsisting between them; but the _likeness_ is not _oneness_--indeed, the latter would exclude {205} the former, for only separates can be like each other. On this theory prayer is no mere meditation, but an intense and strenuous endeavour to make actual something that is only potential; to use the simile we previously employed, it is a digging of channels along which the sea may pour of its fulness into an inland reservoir. That this is what really takes place in prayer--that there is such a real response from Him to whom it is directed--we have no hesitation whatever in affirming; and this notwithstanding the fact that such an experience cannot be proved to one who has not shared it, any more than we can convey a sense of the grandeur of Mont Blanc to one whose eye has never beheld its majestic proportions. Evidently, in this as in every corresponding case the testimony of those who say that they have had a certain experience must be preferred to that of others who can only say that they have not had it; and the witness to spiritual renewal, reinforcement, replenis.h.i.+ng received in prayer--to the entering in of a Presence when the doors were thrown open; to a peace and blessedness which were not of the world's giving--this witness is so strong and so uniform that we have no choice but to p.r.o.nounce it decisive. In every such case something had been "genuinely transacted"; not only had man spoken, but G.o.d had answered--the wors.h.i.+pper had not merely invoked, but in a very real sense he had evoked, the Divine Presence.

{206}

But can we go any further than this? Can we, that is to say, maintain that G.o.d answers prayer, not only by flooding the adoring soul with fresh strength, gladness, confidence, but by bringing to pa.s.s events which otherwise would not have come about? This "objective efficacy" of prayer, in the narrower sense, is frequently doubted to-day; but, as we shall attempt to show, upon grounds which, when examined, prove untenable. The difficulty, as it is most generally stated, arises from a misunderstanding; answers to prayer are regarded as interferences with the uniformities of nature, as arbitrary--and therefore unthinkable--interruptions of the chain of cause and effect, for which there can be no room in an orderly universe. This, no doubt, was what Turgenev meant when he asked, "Does not all prayer mean _au fond_ a wish that in a given case two and two may not make four?" That Turgenev's aphorism quite illegitimately narrows down the meaning of prayer to pet.i.tion, may pa.s.s; it is more important for us to investigate his implied challenge--the grounds upon which he expresses his absolute disbelief in the fulfilment of such pet.i.tions.[6]

A simple preliminary reflection should come to our aid. G.o.d is surely always bringing things to pa.s.s on condition that we first do certain other things, and on no other conditions {207} whatsoever. The seeking has to go before the finding, the knocking to precede the opening of the doors. He will give us waving corn, providing the ground is ploughed and sown; that is to say, He answers our request, if we will make it in the right manner--He lays down certain rules on compliance with which we may secure certain blessings. Is it objected that ploughing and sowing, unlike prayer, are physical exertions made for the purpose of bringing about physical results? That would be a very superficial view; it is certainly truer to say that they are acts of will, and even acts of faith; and in the ultimate a.n.a.lysis the power which has produced the harvest is not the power of matter, but of mind--the mind of man acting in accordance with the Mind of G.o.d. Man has asked, G.o.d has answered; and would not have answered in that particular manner but for the particular manner of that request.

Let us go a step further, still keeping to the obvious. Most visitors to Geneva have made the short excursion to the _Forces matrices_, the great power-station where the swift waters of the Rhone are pressed into the service of man and made to light the streets, propel the tramways and drive all the machinery of the {208} city. Now these vast powers were always there--no law of nature was broken, nor any new one introduced, when they were utilised to lighten man's labours and multiply his energies; all that has happened is that man has discovered existing laws and harnessed them to his use, and once more the real _force motrice_ resides not in those silently-revolving engines that generate the electric current, but in the mind that devised and controls them.

Thought, then--unseen, impalpable--is energy in its essence, the master force which directs, subdues and uses matter; and in prayer we have already seen that we place ourselves in communication with the Central Force of the universe, acquiring power we should not otherwise possess, and replenis.h.i.+ng our emptiness from an inexhaustible store. But if thought, mind, will, are that which lies behind all physical accomplishment, from the simplest to the most wonderful; and if by an exercise of the same faculty we may actually secure results of a spiritual order, direct answering messages, from G.o.d: why should it be _a priori_ unthinkable that we may by the same agency of prayer obtain more "objective" responses, _viz._, the fulfilment of our pet.i.tions? Frankly, we can discover no theoretical grounds on which such a possibility could be merely waved on one side as not worth consideration. Shall we be told that we cannot think that G.o.d would grant a certain wish only on condition that we {209} expressed it to Him? But we have already found that in the regular experience of life the Divine bounty seems to come in response to human efforts which are ultimately efforts of the will. Once more, everything depends upon our thought of G.o.d; if He is such as Jesus taught us to regard Him, may it not well be that His Fatherly love goes out to us in fullest measure when we call upon it with fullest and most childlike trust? If it is urged that G.o.d would surely under all circ.u.mstances grant His children whatever may contribute to their happiness, we need only observe that every parent has had occasion to say to a much-loved child, "You shall have this when you know how to ask for it." The truth has been stated with characteristic simplicity and insight by Dr. James Drummond, in the words, "If G.o.d has left certain things dependent on the action of the human will, He may also have left certain things dependent on human pet.i.tion." [7]

So much is sure, that in all true prayer we set spiritual forces in motion, to whose effects upon ourselves we can bear witness; and if their action in one direction is an ascertained fact, however mysterious and inexplicable, with what warrant shall we deny the possibility of their acting in another? Certainly we shall not argue that such action involves an "interference" with natural law; and if we have to admit our ignorance as to {210} _how_ such a force would operate and bring results to pa.s.s, let us remind ourselves that the ultimate "how?"--the bridge between antecedent and consequent, and why the former should be followed by the latter--always and inevitably escapes us. Why in the thousand and more observed forms of snow-crystals the filaments of ice should always be arranged at angles of 60 degrees or 120 degrees; why sulphate of potash and sulphate of alumina should crystallise in octahedrons or in cubes, but in no other forms; what is the real connection between molecular changes in the brain-substance and states of consciousness--all these, and a myriad more, are unsolved mysteries: we can only say that we are dealing with facts of experience. And as in these and countless other cases, so here also, in this matter of answers to prayer, the final and only test is that of experience. That a vessel in distress should be able to send a message to another vessel a hundred miles out of sight, and summon it to its aid, would have struck an earlier generation as a piece of wild romancing--but we know it is actually done; that a soul's earnest prayer may avail to enlist mighty energies in its help and so to bring about results which otherwise would not have come to pa.s.s, ought hardly to strike the present age as an inherently incredible proposition.

But we shall be told that our parallel does not hold good: if the Marconi apparatus failed seven times out of ten, we should hardly {211} think it worth while to provide our s.h.i.+ps with so unreliable an instrument; yet who would say that even three out of ten prayers for stated objects met with fulfilment? The objection, however, is not unanswerable; indeed, the very comparison employed in stating it may enable us to supply at least a partial answer. For we understand that the success of wireless messages being transmitted and received depends upon absolutely perfect "tuning"; the electric waves set up, _i.e._, will only act upon a receiver most delicately attuned to a particular rate of oscillations, and when the difference between the rate of oscillation of the waves and the receiver exceeds one per cent., resonance ceases altogether, so that the message may be sent, but will not be received. It strikes us as hardly a fanciful supposition that many prayers fail to obtain an answer for a precisely a.n.a.logous reason, _i.e._, for lack of attuning. The mere uttering of devotional phraseology, or even the sending forth of anguished appeals, does not of necessity const.i.tute true prayer at all, and hence remains ineffective, because the soul is not really _en rapport_ with G.o.d. We suggest that the supplication which "availeth much in its working" will be the outcome of a whole spiritual discipline, whereby the individual spirit has become attuned to the Spirit whom it seeks; if the majority of prayers go unanswered, it is because they are mere recitals of a tale of wants, without even an attempt upon the {212} part of those who utter them to put themselves into the att.i.tude upon which an answer depends. On the other hand, where the adjustment of which we speak has reached a high state of perfection, the soul not only transmits its message to G.o.d with the perfect a.s.surance of being heard, but it is also continually sensitive to the messages which incessantly flash through the spiritual ether from G.o.d, but which only those can hear who have learned the secret of listening for His word.

In dealing with this question of unanswered prayer, we have given the first place to what seems to us the most important as well as the least frequently regarded reason--the lack of spiritual discipline, which is ultimately the lack of faith, with which we pray. When we remember, moreover, that many of our pet.i.tions are framed in very natural and inevitable ignorance of what is for our truest good, we realise another and very obvious reason for the non-fulfilment of a large proportion of the wishes we lay before the throne of G.o.d, whose goodness is as much attested by what He denies to our foolishness as by what He grants to our entreaties. And how numerous are the prayers which reflection and an awakened moral sense rule out of court: prayers which ask G.o.d to do for us by special intervention what we ought to do for ourselves by our own effort and industry; prayer for success in dealings and enterprises which in themselves are ethically {213} unjustifiable, and to which the only answer could be, "Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself"; prayers which carry the spirit of egoism, of compet.i.tion, of bargaining even into our relations with the Most High; prayers of an imprecatory character such as meet and shock us in some of the psalms.

How could these and their like possibly be granted by a just and merciful Creator?

But apart from such presumptuous, foolish, or impious supplications as are at once repulsed and rebuked by the Divine silence, what are the objects we may lawfully pray for, asking for a response? It must be confessed that with the exception of pet.i.tions for spiritual blessings--for a deeper faith, for a more complete obedience, for a humbler heart, for a wider sympathy--such as can never be out of place, it is impossible to draw a hard-and-fast line; there is, indeed, a whole vast category of possible objects of prayer which one cannot _a priori_ p.r.o.nounce legitimate or otherwise. We can only humbly confess that "we know not how to pray as we ought," nor what things it is in our best interest to have granted or withheld from us; but with this proviso, and with the clause, "Nevertheless, not my will but Thine," added to our pet.i.tions, there can be no wrong in making our requests to G.o.d for every manner of blessing, material or otherwise, and whether on our own behalf or on behalf of others. Here we may surely with {214} all confidence and with all reverence invoke the a.n.a.logy of human parenthood. No true earthly parent is offended or moved to impatience by his children expressing to him all their wants and wishes with perfect unreserve, even though his loving wisdom has antic.i.p.ated their real needs, and will decide which of their desires may be granted; indeed, as we already hinted, the granting of those desires may depend to some extent upon the children's att.i.tude, upon the filial, trustful, affectionate disposition they exhibit. So in regard to the supplications we address to our Father in Heaven: we cannot think of His being moved by our mere importunity, or by the mechanical repet.i.tion of set phrases; but that the fulfilment of some wish of ours may be conditioned by our humility and confidence in expressing it, presents no improbability. In any case, what is necessary on our part is that we should have faith, not only in G.o.d's _power_ to grant our pet.i.tions, but in His _wisdom_ in granting or refusing them as may be most expedient for us. We ourselves can, within limits, fulfil most of our children's requests; but a wise and loving parent will many a time say "no," when his child may marvel at what to him must seem a mere arbitrary or even unkind refusal of an innocent desire. That hapless man of genius, the late John Davidson, condensed the truth into one illuminating phrase when he spoke of prayer rightly uttered as {215} "submissive aspiration"; it would be difficult to devise another form of words equally brief yet containing so much of the essence of the matter.

Even short of actual fulfilment, it is an immeasurable privilege simply to speak to G.o.d about all the things that weigh on our minds, a.s.sured of His hearing, nor should the fact that He knows all about our troubles before we open our lips concerning them restrain our utterance; for our object is not to give Him information, but to place ourselves in conscious communion with Him, and by viewing our affairs in His light to see light.

This applies to all our pet.i.tions, and perhaps in an especial measure to intercessory prayer, those touching requests which we send up for our dear ones in sickness, peril, sorrow, need, or any other adversity. Of course, all such intercessions ought to be mentally qualified by the a.s.surance that G.o.d will do what is best, even though we may be unable to understand His decrees; but there is nothing unreasonable in the belief that our prayers for others may be, and frequently are, directly effective, setting energies in motion which might otherwise have remained latent and inoperative. How these energies operate may be quite beyond our power to ascertain or even to guess; but if--to say it once more--the action of matter on matter, the "how" of chemical combinations, eludes us, shall we complain because the action of mind on mind, spirit on spirit, is no {216} less elusive? The final test--whether, _e.g._, a mother's prayer that her absent son may be preserved from the snare of some great temptation, is able to work a change in his mind--is, as we said above, the test of experience; and unless we are dogmatically determined to reject all testimony which bears on this subject, there seems no escaping the conclusion that specific prayers have been specifically, directly, and unmistakeably answered in instances too numerous to admit of explanation by coincidence.[8] The volume of human testimony bearing on this subject is too great to be swept aside by a simple refusal to consider it; if there is no insurmountable logical obstacle to the possibility of prayer proving objectively effective--and we have tried to show that there are no such obstacles--we must examine the alleged instances of such answers without prejudice; and if we do so, then, after making all legitimate deductions, we shall still find a body of residual fact which is not to be explained away.

By all means, then, we conclude, let us obey the instincts which urge us to turn to G.o.d in {217} prayer; they lie deeper and are less fallible--embodying as they do the experience of the race--than our individual reasonings. We may tell our Father in all simplicity of whatever desires we may cherish with an approving conscience, leaving the fulfilment to His wise and steadfast love; it is not the ignorance of our requests but the faithlessness of our spirits that we most stand in need of guarding against. Let us here, as elsewhere, follow the example of the Son of G.o.d, whose unique intimacy with the Father made Him only the more earnest in communing with Him, least lonely when alone with G.o.d.

Above all, let us bear in mind that the best prayer is that which has least of self-seeking in it, but is answered in the making, and so sends us back to our tasks--perhaps to our trials--refreshed as by a draught from some hidden and precious spring, renewed in manhood and nearer to G.o.d. In the oft-quoted aphorism of George Meredith, "He who rises from his prayer a better man, his prayer is answered." As a Greater than Meredith said, "Your Heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things; but seek ye first His Kingdom, and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." The ideal prayer is that which will ask little, aspire much, submit altogether; it is the soul's complete surrender to and rest in G.o.d.

[1] The Rev. E. W. Lewis, M.A., B.D., in a paper on "The Divine Immanence, its Meaning and its Implications." Compare also _The New Theology_, p. 34. As Dr. William Adamson observes, "The ill.u.s.tration is unfortunate. The supposed ocean is to be thought of as infinite, and the bay is finite, but in their essence and existence they are essentially one. There can be no bay where there is no boundary, and where in this case could the boundary be found, for there can be nothing outside the infinite?"

[2] Bousset, _Faith of a Modern Protestant_, p. 59.

[3] _The Varieties of Religious Experience_, p. 466.

[4] _A Century's Progress_, p. 105-6.

[5] _Spinoza_, by J. Allanson Picton, p. 213.

[6] So far, of course, as such an att.i.tude may be the outcome of an antecedent disbelief in G.o.d, it is perfectly logical; only we have no common ground with those who take that view. It is otherwise, however, where an avowed acceptance of Theism is nevertheless accompanied by doubts as regards any objective effects flowing from supplications addressed to G.o.d; it is with such doubts as these that we are concerned.

[7] _Studies in Christian Doctrine_, p. 197.

[8] Precisely such an instance was brought under the notice of the present writer by a correspondent, whose prayers that an absent one in distant lands might be able to resist the power of strong temptation was "heard" past all doubting--and that without the object of these pet.i.tions being aware of the cause, as let a remark of his own attest: "I don't know why, but sometimes I feel myself in some way held back from doing certain things--how, I cannot explain; I only know that I should do as others do, were it not for this compelling feeling."

{218}

CHAPTER XII

IMMORTALITY

Throughout the preceding pages we have been princ.i.p.ally engaged in tracing the effects of the idea of Divine immanence upon the main contents of religious thought. While trying to show that this idea, rightly understood and set in its proper place, embodies an important and at one time unduly neglected truth, we have also seen that its misinterpretation and over-emphasis--the tendency to view it as not only true but as const.i.tuting the whole truth--is attended by dangers of a particularly grave character. Under whatever name, idealistic Monism or any other, the doctrine which recognises only one ultimate Existence expressing itself in all things and working its will in all events, is fatal to any religion worthy the name; indeed, since the term "religion" indicates a _link_, and a link is possible only between things or beings requiring to be held together, the fundamental tenet of Monism excludes religion in the only vital sense it has ever been known to bear, and more especially the Christian religion. Quite {219} inevitably it abandons the personality and Fatherhood of G.o.d, the selfhood and freedom of man, the reality of sin and evil, which it describes as "not-being," and the value and rationality of prayer--for how or to whom can we pray if we are already "on the eternal throne"?

Quite inevitably, therefore, we may add, the votaries of this philosophy, in attempting to accommodate it to the facts of life, the intuitions of the moral self and the aspirations of the soul, are faced everywhere by irreconcilable antinomies and "find no end, in wandering mazes lost."

Are the a.s.sumptions of the monist any more in harmony with the doctrine of immortality than with those other beliefs with which it thus finds itself at variance? We have already seen that they are not: neither the Monism of Mr. Picton nor that of Mr. Wells leaves any room for personal survival--as is, indeed, only to be expected in accordance with their premises; for if the individual as such does not really exist, why should he persist? And from yet another monistic quarter we are oracularly a.s.sured that we shall "one day know that the end of our being is that it may _be submerged without reserve in the infinite ocean of G.o.d_." Nothing could be more definite; nor, it must be confessed, more utterly hopeless. To be "submerged without reserve" is to cease from even the illusion of individuality; it is absorption, Nirvana.

{220}

In taking up this position, in finally quenching

The hope whereto so pa.s.sionately cling The dreaming generations from of old,

the monist is merely true to his creed; we may, however, express a preference that he should do so without religious circ.u.mlocutions--that the verdict should be, as in the famous historical instance, "_la mort, sans phrase_." When Mr. Wells says--

I do not believe I have any personal immortality. . . The experiment will be over, the rinsed beaker returned to its shelf, the crystals gone dissolving down the wastepipe--[1]

we know where we are, and feel thankful to the author for his frankness; to talk about submersion in "the infinite ocean of G.o.d," on the other hand, invests an idea which, nakedly stated, means annihilation pure and simple, with a pseudo-religious air which is far more subtly dangerous. Indeed, of the various expedients for extinguis.h.i.+ng men's faith in the life to come, this is probably the most insidiously effective in use to-day; it is the silken handkerchief, drenched with chloroform and held quite gently to the victim's face--a lethal weapon in all but appearance. And there are some who are attracted by the faint, cloying odour of this chloroform.

Before we examine this fas.h.i.+onable doctrine of absorption, however, it may be well to deal {221} with certain other causes which between them account for much of the uneasiness--often unavowed but nevertheless very real--concerning a future life, which unquestionably is widely felt in our day. All a.s.sertions to the contrary notwithstanding, it is a case of uneasiness, and not of indifference; the bravado which professes to give thanks to "whatever G.o.ds there be"--

That no life lives for ever That dead men rise up never, That even the weariest river Winds somewhere safe to sea--