Scriptures. Every reader of the Bible must acknowledge that its teaching concerning man's origin, nature, and destiny is, as to extent, explicitness, and importance, wholly different from its teaching concerning the structure of the solar system, or the length of a creative day. To assume that principles of interpretation based on the teaching of Scripture and the history of doctrine on these latter subjects, are applicable to the former, is to say the least-illogical. As well might one maintain

that, because he may treat as an open question, whether negroes are descendants of Canaan, he may therefore treat as an open question, whether the Jews are descendants of Abraham. If the Scriptures are received as a revelation from God, are men at liberty to treat as an open question, whether man was evolved out of an ape by natural law, or was created by immediate divine agency, in "the image of God"? Can they treat the doctrine of the fall of man as an open question? Can they treat the doctrine of a supernatural salvation by a supernatural Saviour as an open question? Can they treat the doctrine, that the resurrection of Christ, and the other miracles recorded in Scripture, were supernatural, as an open question? Can they treat the doctrine of the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit in regenerating and sanctifying believers as an open question? Can they treat the doctrine of immortality-the eternal blessedness of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the wicked -as an open question? On such subjects as these, can a genuine faith be provisional? If such doctrines as these are to be treated as open questions, or to be accepted provisionally until science has settled their truth or falsity, then is the Bible the most useless of books, the occupation of the Gospel minister is gone, and "Lay Sermons" from distinguished scientists are "the only infallible rule to direct us what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man."

But some may be ready to ask, Suppose that science should hereafter prove that man was descended from an ape, what then becomes of the Bible and evangelical religion? This question. may be answered by asking another. Suppose that, hereafter, it should be discovered that two and two make five, what then becomes of our mathematics? Suppose that, in the progress of science, it should hereafter be found that matter does not attract

but repels matter, what then becomes of our physics? Suppose that, in the progress of physiology, it should hereafter be proved that thought, and affection, and emotion, are nothing but secretions of the brain-determined by the proportions present of oxygen and hydrogen, and nitrogen, and carbon, and especially phosphorus (as it already is said, "no phosphorus, no thought"), what then becomes of your metaphysics and your ethics? The answer to these questions-as to the question which suggested them-is, that science can never prove that which is not true, and there is little interest and no profit in speculating as to the possible conclusions that may be drawn from an impossible premise.

If this reply be unsatisfactory to the inquirer, still another question may be ventured. Suppose that science should ultimately prove that the biblical account of the origin of man is true-what then becomes of those who, in the mean time, accept the false hypothesis and respect the Bible?-or of those who, awaiting the final verdict of science, treat the inspiration of the Bible as an open question? The Scriptures answer this question when they declare that "if the Gospel be hid"-whether through ignorance or the conceit of knowledge, whether through false philosophy or the speculations of "science falsely so-called"-they to whom it is hid "are lost." There is one doctrine which science and revelation agree in teaching-the responsibility of man for his belief. The violation of moral as well as of physical law-whether done wilfully or ignorantlywill be followed by its legitimate consequences. If the Scriptures be but "a cunningly devised fable," and faith in them a delusion, then at death believers in the Bible, together with those who reject it, will-it may be-" melt away like a morning cloud into the infinite azure of the past." If the development theory of the origin of man shall in a little while take its place as doubtless it will-with other exploded scientific speculations, then they who accept it with its proper logical consequences will, in the life to come, have their portion with those who, in this life, "know not God and obey not the gospel of his Son."

This discussion may appropriately be concluded with the confirming words of Principal Dawson: "What we know of primi

tive man from geological investigation presents no contradiction to the history of his origin in the Bible, but rather gives such corroboration as warrants the expectation that, as our knowledge of pre-historic man increases, it will more and more fully bring out the force of those few and bold touches with which it has pleased God to enable his ancient prophets to sketch the early history of our species. Truth and divinity are stamped on every line of the early chapters of Genesis, alike in their archaic simplicity, and in that accuracy as to facts which enables them not only to stand unharmed amid the discoveries of modern science, but to display new beauties as we are able more and more fully to compare them with the records stored up from of old in the recesses of the earth. Those who base their hopes for the future on the glorious revelations of the Bible need not be ashamed of its story of the past."

JOHN T. DUffield.

12

CONDITIONS OF SUCCESSFUL PRAYER.

PRAYER

RAYER is natural to man. It springs out of that sense of dependence which, if it be not, as Schleiermacher affirmed, the essence of all religion, is at least one of the essential conditions of any religion. The soul that is entirely self-centred and self-sufficing may contrive to exist without one ejaculation for existence. But man, who is constantly feeling himself hampered and hindered by the pressure upon him of difficulties from without and by the consciousness of his inability to meet and overcome them, cannot help falling back upon the bosom of God. With an instinct as real as that which impels the infant to cry for its appropriate food, and an impulse as strong as that which drives the child in the hour of danger to its mother's knee, men are led in their times of helplessness to call upon God. So long as they are at ease and comfortable, they may contrive to get along without any appeal to the Most High; but when trouble comes, which no human brother can remove, the carelessness is thrown aside, and human theories are forgotten, as they sob out the words which agony always presses first to the lips, "My God! My God!" Man cannot help himself here. He cannot, if he would, destroy the feeling which thus powerfully asserts itself. Nor will it do to say that all this is the effect of education; for even among heathen nations there are indications of the fact that prayer has existed from the beginning; while if there be any, which may be gravely doubted, who have lost the idea, their very readiness to receive the truth of the existence of God to whom they may appeal, demonstrates the naturalness of such a thing as prayer. This,

then, is one of the answers which, without opening the Bible at all, may be given to those who cast reproach on prayer. They are ignoring the yearnings of the human heart. In their investigation of nature everywhere else, they have forgotten the nature which is within themselves and their fellow-men. They have swept the material universe with their telescopic examination, but they have neglected to take note of the observatory on which they stood, and to make allowance for the "personal equation;" and it may be said to them, that either the nature within them is a lie, and in that an exception to nature everywhere else, or it is a right thing to pray; that either men's hearts are misled by their deepest, holiest, and most constant instincts, or there is One above, able and willing to help, and to whom man may cry in his times of need.

But while seeming to assent to all this, there are some who say, "It is, of course, a right thing to pray, but you must not expect to receive the material blessing for which you ask; all the benefit you will receive will be subjective in the bringing of your own heart into a better and more peaceful state." Thus they make the reflex influence of supplication on the petitioner the direct and only good result of prayer. Now, it is not denied that prayer has such an effect upon the soul. Every real suppliant has experienced it to such a degree that he can appropriate the words of Trench:

But when have men received such benefits from their prayers? It has been when they were most simple and sincere in the belief that God could and would give them the very things which they were seeking. Thus the subjective benefits of prayer depend on the belief in its objective power. How long will men continue to ask blessings, if they suppose that the only good they are to derive is, that they shall be brought to resignation and peace? They will not make requests at all unless they have faith that their petitions shall be answered. They cannot make