fort we are to do that from the basis of a good life, and one in which, in inward character and outward conversation, we are "growing in grace."

Time and space forbid us to follow out the testimony of the "ancient authors" and "godly doctors" in detail. It will hardly be denied, however, that for more than four centuries they attempted no complete theory or exhaustive statement of predestination.1 They made mention of God's sovereignty on the one side, and man's free will on the other. But they did not so much as speak of, far less theorize, on reprobation in the modern sense of the word.

They knew nothing of that scholastic series of instants, involving a first, second, third, and fourth as to time in God, and settling an order "prioritatis et posterioritatis" in the Divine decrees. They could not, therefore, have held any settled, defined, rounded-out theory of predestination, and certainly not that of Calvin.

In all this we find the key to the language, first, of "The Erudition of a Christian Man," and next, of Article XVII., which is taken from it. We find on what principles the Article was constructed, with what purpose it was written, and what it means. Many words will not be needed to set this forth.

Holding fast to the great underlying truth of man's powerlessness without God's grace, and so avoiding the Scylla of Pelagianism, the Article rejects reprobation by actually omitting it, puts to one side all idea of unconditional decrees and grace unto salvation confined to certain individuals, as individuals, and thus stuns the Charybdis of Calvinism; it next states, keeping strictly to the language of Scripture, the fact of predestination in almost St. Paul's own words; and then, in Scripture language still, it goes on to describe the ideal of the process by which all this is worked out, the odor by which the xpiuata are brought to pass. It leaves the statement of doctrine, therefore, just in that indeterminate condition in which Scripture leaves it, not absolutely stated, not systematized, not carried beyond "what is written."

Secondly, guarding against practical perversions, against the two dangers of despair and recklessness-dangers which history shows to

'It is by no means certain that Clement of Alexandria intended to announce a theory of predestination in the well-known passage in his "Stromata." He may have designed only to state the undoubted fact that all the saved will be righteous. Bishop Pearson [Lectio xxiv.] makes the same statement, and also its converse, but he is not setting forth the theory of the Remonstrants.

* Pearson, "Minor Works," vol. i. pp. 244–252. He quotes the testimony of Prosper as to the Epistle to the Romans.

be not merely theoretical, but practical-it forbids any man to seek comfort, incitement, encouragement from the doctrine, unless he can seek it from the ground, honestly claimed and without self-deceit, of a good and godly life.

And lastly, it forbids us, in considering predestination as a fact, to look at it, as it rises in "tremendous inystery" into heights of the Divine will, power, and knowledge which man has no capacities to reach, from any other basis than that of other truths which can be fully stated to us, and which we can fully apprehend, namely, the universal promises and the expressly declared will of God, made to, and laid on, man in Jesus Christ.

Is this a process of paltering, trimming, dodging, seeming to say something, and saying nothing? It is rather the reverent utterance that keeps close to the oracles of God, and echoes the voice of the purest ages of the Church. It makes it possible for Article XVII. to be drawn into dispute, just as Holy Scripture is. It thrusts away metaphysical subtleties. It leaves room for reasonable movement of opinions, salva veritate. It carries out that noble warning of the Erudition, worthy to be printed in letters of gold:

"ALL MEN BE ALSO TO BE MONISHED, AND CHIEFLY PREACHERS, THAT IN THIS HIGH MATTER THEY, LOOKING ON BOTH SIDES, SO ATTEMPER AND MODERATE THEMSELVES, THAT NEITHER THEY SO PREACH THE GRACE OF

GOD THAT THEY TAKE AWAY FREE WILL, NOR, ON THE OTHER SIDE, SO EXTOL FREE WILL THAT INJURY BE DONE TO THE GRACE OF GOD."

THE

HE suggestion made in England, not long since, that the efficacy of prayer for physical results should be determined by a definite and prearranged physical test, has drawn forth, on the other side of the water, a storm of excited controversy. The echoes of that controversy reverberate on our own shores, and it seems likely that the whole subject of prayer, including alike its proper objects and its value for any object, will receive a searching scrutiny before the matter is dropped. It is well that this should be so. In the end, truth can only gain from the fullest investigation. Time-honored beliefs have their value as such; but to retain their active power over men's minds, they must have some other hold upon our faith than their mere antiquity. Our age is certainly disposed to put in practice the first part of the Apostolic maxim, "Prove all things; and whatever temporary unsettling of foundations may result, we believe the final result will be the carrying out also of the latter part, "Hold fast that which is good."

Theology, as the human science of Divine things, has had in modern times many a battle with advancing natural science; and, it must be confessed, has seldom or never come off conqueror. Individual scientific men, indeed, and particular scientific theories, have often broken their lances against assured theological truth. These same men and these same theories have been also overborne by the progress of natural science itself. Hence, it is by no means to be

assumed, when any new speculation in science inimical to theology is broached, that theology must go to the wall. It cannot even be considered that an issue has been fairly joined until the new speculation has had time to be examined and tested on every side, and then, being approved, has been placed among the accepted truths of science. Even then, in the rare cases in which opposition still continues, it is an opposition, not necessarily to revelation itself, but only to theology as its interpreter. It now remains that this interpretation should be examined and sifted as the scientific interpretation has been. It has never yet happened that when the process was complete, contradiction has still remained. We believe that it never can happen, because we believe nature and revelation to proceed from the same Source. Only the untrue interpretations, the ill-founded speculations, and the imperfect guesses of both the one and the other must be, and in time will be, corrected.

It has thus happened, historically, that the influence of physical science upon theology has been most wholesome, and it is so still. The two sciences cannot, as has been sometimes suggested, each pursue their independent way, uninfluenced by the work of the other; for not only do they frequently come in contact (as is illustrated by this very subject of prayer), and unavoidably touch each upon the ground of the other, but the whole realm of truth is one, and every part is so inextricably connected with every other part, that our ignorance or our knowledge of any one necessarily affects our view of all. in the nature of the human mind that any conviction, firmly held, must be in harmony with its other convictions; and if such be not the case, one or other must be cast out. The truths of theology and the truths of natural science must be seen to be consistent, or one of them must be rejected. The illogical habits of men may sometimes prevent this in the individual; but, in the long run, it must certainly occur in the community.

It is

Chronologically, the science of theology had a very long start of the science of nature. In the earlier ages the former had neither check nor assistance from the latter. Consequently, theology, however sound in its proper sphere, was yet compelled, in order to complete its cycle of truth, and to link together assured realities, to go beyond its sphere, and speculate on many things of which it knew nothing, and for which it had no basis of knowledge. Hence, it was sometimes led to dogmatize about such things erroneously, and this the more easily and the more innocently because there was nothing to suggest even that it was wandering from the truth. It supposed that the sun went round the earth; that the

material universe was the work of six ordinary days; that the death of the lower animals was the consequence of the fall of man; that fossils upon the mountain tops were evidences of the deluge, and many such like things. Here were facts or problems in the world. patent to the eyes of all. No one offered any explanation of them. The temptation to the theologian to form a theory which should bring them into what appeared from his stand-point, the most obvious harmony with his system, was irresistible. Errors upon such matters, though of secondary importance, theologically, yet had their debasing influence upon the high and unquestionable truths which were forced to be bound up with them into a completed system. Modern physical science had its birth in that mental activity which accompanied a great theological reformation. It soon came to act as the deliverer of the most ancient of sciences from the thraldom of the absurd systems of nature it had begotten of itself. It showed theologians-sometimes reluctant enough to see-the errors into which they had unavoidably fallen when speculating beyond their province, and it gradually established, on firm grounds, the truths which were to take their place. The important service was thus rendered of replacing error with truth, in many points not indeed properly theological, but yet necessary to complete the circle of truth with which theology must deal. Its whole system has thus gradually become more complete, and a nearer approximation to absolute truth. A necessary consequence has been a certain amount of modification in the statement even of dogmas properly theological, but which had taken a false coloring from distorted views of physics. The process is not yet complete. Much, very much, yet remains to be done for theology by natural science, which, in due time, it will surely accomplish. The wise theologian rejoices in each step of advance positively gained, and looks forward with eagerness to the time when much that is still uncertain and obscure in the bearings and relations of his own speculations shall become clear by a better and fuller knowledge of the Divine method in nature.

Meantime, it is only in accordance with our human nature that this modifying process should at times, and to some minds, seem vastly greater than it really is. Such is just now eminently the case with the subject under consideration, and it is for this reason that these somewhat extended prefatory remarks have seemed necessary. The question proposed is, whether physical objects are the legitimate subjects of prayer? Or, in other words, whether it is consistent with the teachings of natural science that an answer to such prayers should be expected.