whether he will modify his actions at the request of men as he does in response to the acts of men. To say that he will not is to say that he refuses all spiritual intercommunion between himself and the being to whom, for some reason, he gives so large a place in the government and development of the world. What he demonstrably allows to man suggests that he will do more than can be demonstrated, that is, that he will, at least at times, govern himself in accordance with human prayer. And this seems to be demanded in order to supplement and complete the cooperation already so prominent a factor in the relations between himself and man, by adding to cooperation by independent activities cooperation by mutual consultation. There is nothing in this belittling to God, but there is much in it that comports with the dignity of man as revealed by man's place in the world. A difficulty that stands in the way of many is the fact that it is impossible to demonstrate answer to prayer, while there appear to be so many cases in which the petitions of human beings are certainly not granted. It is not trifling to point out that it is vastly more difficult to prove the granting of a petition than the refusal. We have the same thing to contend with in the use of remedial agencies for disease. When these fail we know it with certainty, but it would be almost impossible to convince the skeptical that the remedy brought about the recovery of one who became well. Yet we go right on employing such means as we hope may produce the desired results. Many discriminating individuals have attained to a high degree of certitude with reference to the effectiveness of certain medicaments; and there are fully as many of equal powers of discrimination who are thoroughly convinced that prayer has been directly answered, especially for spiritual ends. In neither case is there proof sufficient to satisfy one who is disposed to be very exacting in his demands for conclusive evidence. If this seems to leave the matter of answer to prayer for things in great uncertainty it must be replied that the only requisite to the spirit of prayer is the belief, not that God does generally, or even frequently, modify his activities according to our request, but merely that he listens to our prayers, takes them into consideration in the determination of his plans, and that he can, if he sees fit, grant our desires. Action finds as powerful a spring in hope as in certainty. So that when the "simple believer," of whom we hear so much, prays God not to allow her wayward son to go too far in paths of sin she may have a reasonable assurance that God will give heed to her petition. Or, when another simple believer prays for rain that his crops

may not be destroyed by drought he will feel certain that his act is something more than an attempt to establish a personal relationship between himself and God, however blessed such a relationship may be. But it will be said that at least as far as that wayward son is concerned it is inconceivable that God should not do all that he can do to hold him in check without any request from his mother. But it is certainly not inconceivable, nor even improbable. For God has unquestionably thrown upon man a responsibility for the welfare of his fellows. This cannot be explained on the ground that God does not watch with solicitude over the moral and spiritual welfare of men, but it is probably founded on a desire to give the race, for its own good, all the responsibility it can bear. God undoubtedly could, if he saw fit, do all that is needful for each individual without human cooperation; but instead of this he makes man his brother's keeper. That the highest interests of humanity are subserved by this arrangement will be conceded by all. There are, therefore, the best of reasons why God should in some cases and to some extent make his activities dependent upon the request of human beings.

The chief end of prayer is not, as some would have us believe, that we may learn submission to the will of God. We are supposed to have subjected ourselves to him before we pray for things. We say, "Thy will be done," not to indicate that we have no will, but in frank acknowledgment of the superior righteousness and wisdom of God's will. We ask, but we do not dictate; and one of the most frequent and beneficial results of prayer is that by it we ascertain God's will. But over and above this we pray because the world in which we live is seen to be not so definitely planned as to exclude modification from time to time. Much of the world's history-we never know how much -is left to the determination of man. Here, not in those particulars in which constant operations display the fixed purpose of God, is the sphere for effective prayer. Prayer is not designed to change, but to determine, God's plans. For this reason also importunity in prayer is allowable. If God's final plans are to be in some cases fixed in accordance with prayer it is reasonable to suppose that he should wish to secure in those who pray a proper appreciation of the results they ask him to bring about. While not every casual request, therefore, may be granted, certain very much desired favors might be granted. The trite is sometimes, as in this case, the true and the rational. The doctrine of the divine Fatherhood certainly gives us no hint that God shuts his children out from a reasonable share in the mutual deter

mination of the activities of all the members of the divine family. Rather does it suggest that as the children heed the Father's wish, so the Father, as much as possible, heeds the children's wish. The filial relation, if it is not to be robbed of its very best content, must include the privilege of participation in all planning as well as in the execution of the means and measures by which the common family weal is to be secured. Imagine the effect upon the children's freedom of approach to a father who would give them plainly to understand that their suggestions were not needed, either because he had already divined them or because his superior wisdom made them useless, and that if offered they would under no circumstances affect the father's conduct of the family affairs! So also the idea of the kingdom suggests the value rather than the futility of prayer. The right of petition, direct or indirect, is allowed everywhere except in the absolute monarchy. In proportion as government is in the interest of the governed is the right of petition, or, which is the same thing, the right of initiative on the part of the governed, encouraged. The analogy does not, of course, hold in all respects. Human governments do not have infinitely wise and beneficent heads. But God has in fact vacated his rights and prerogatives to a certain, though by us indeterminable, extent, in favor of man's exercise of his own judgment and powers. So that the situation is, within limits, the same as it is in a human government conducted on the principle of the mutual cooperation of rulers and ruled. And God carries this to the extent of sometimes allowing the beneficent course of events he would doubtless secure if left to himself to be interrupted by the most frightful and disastrous blunders of human judgment and preference. Notwithstanding all this, no thoughtful man would wish that humanity might be excused from its present responsible prerogatives. None would choose the paternal government which gives every determination over to God. In spite of all we suffer by our own mistakes we all prefer the arrangement now in force. And we must believe that God prefers it too, else he would not permit it to be. There must be some high purpose which he can better work out by this method than by the opposite. And since he allows man such extraordinary influence in the work of the kingdom it is incredible that he will not consider man's requests, but will pass them by as though they had not been presented. The supposition that God either cannot or will not answer prayer is out of analogy with all other manifestations of his regard for the preferences of mankind.

THE ARENA.

TITHING A CHRISTIAN DUTY.

DR. DANIEL STEELE contends in the last number of the Methodist Review that the giving of a tenth of our income to religious purposes is not "a positive requirement of Christ," and that such requirement cannot be counted "a part of Christianity." He is no doubt technically correct in this, for there is no direct command of the Saviour to this effect, and hence a person does not necessarily and altogether forfeit his claim to be called a Christian when he confines his bestowments within a much smaller amount. But there seems to us considerable danger lest the good doctor's strong emphasis upon this point should unduly relieve the consciences of many who stand in no particular need of such relief and should create a wrong impression of the real condition of the case. He had no space in which to present the other side, it was not in the line of his argument; but there is an argument-which seems to me very strong and greatly to need frequent presentation-to which the attention of Christians who content themselves with giving very much less than one tenth of their income to benevolent or altruistic objects should, in my opinion, be constantly called, that, if possible, they may be led to see more clearly what is the truly Christian attitude in this matter. Surely a thing may be a duty-by force of circumstances, weight of reasonableness, and proved helpfulness in its effect on self and others-when there is no positive enactment of a divine law in so many words, nor yet what might be called exactly an intuition or a "dictate of our moral sense." We rightly say that church membership is a Christian duty, that family prayers is a Christian duty, also attendance on prayer meetings, all of them when practicable. Not that any text of Scripture can be quoted which precisely requires either of these things, but that experience has so far shown them to be immensely beneficial that a plain rule of observance lies in their favor. Expediency, when clearly established, has no less binding authority on the conscience of the Christian than legal enactments; he recognizes it as virtually a command from his higher nature, an indication of the will of God. It is also unquestionably the duty of every Christian to love God with all his heart and soul and mind and strength, and to love his neighbor as himself. Is it conceivable that one with such a love will be anxious to see how little he can do for Christ and his fellow-men, will hide behind the fact that there is no legal enactment absolutely demanding one tenth as a matter of compulsion, and will plead that since he is a Christian, not a Jew, he is at full liberty without qualm of conscience or impairment of his standing to spend nearly, if not quite, all his substance on himself? If we have love enough doing "the things that are pleasing in his sight" becomes fully as important as "keeping his commandments." If we have love enough privileges become duties and duties privileges. The closest possible partnership with the Saviour is to such a one not a

burden to be borne but a delight to be enjoyed. He does not inquire carefully how much he must give for extending the kingdom and redeeming the world, but how much he may give and not be unjust to other obligations. It is doubtless possible to give too much to God's work. He who simply follows the impulses of a thoroughly loyal, loving heart filled with deep desire that the Master may everywhere be honored, might conceivably forget his duty to his family and his future, might lay himself open to the reproach of not properly providing for his own, might imperil the rights of his children or fail to meet certain claims of justice. He will need to check this tendency by some prudential rule that shall embody the wisdom of the ages in this matter and have the sanction of the best examples. Is there any other rule that can compare with the tenth? Is there anything that has such a weight of general approval behind it? It comes down from the most ancient times. It was repeatedly insisted upon in the older Scriptures which still remain to us an important source of ascertaining the mind of God. It was grounded, not in the evanescent prescriptions of Mosaism, but in the fundamental needs of human nature. It was so commonly accepted by the early Christian Church as not to call for specific reenactment at the hands of the apostles. It has highly commended itself to vast numbers of the most devoted down through the centuries. It has been continually proved in practice to be attended by the special blessing of God both temporally and spiritually. All this being so, I for one am at a loss to understand how anyone who considers himself a follower of Jesus can justify the crude, careless, slipshod, haphazard habits of giving which so generally prevail, or can really content himself with much, if anything, less, as a rule, than the tithe or tenth. It may be admitted that in extreme poverty a smaller proportion might be accepted of the Lord. It must certainly be held that those who have much wealth should give a good deal more. But that there is any better rule, for the great body of the Church, applicable to nearly all cases, the present writer does not believe. Nor is he willing to admit that there is any special danger of “legalism and self-righteousness" arising from the adoption of this rule as a plain dictate of Christian duty and privilege. The peril of spiritual pride attaches to all high states of grace; this, of course, should make us watchful, but surely need not deter us from setting our mark at the highest level. I greatly deprecate any suggestion or mode of treating this topic that shall seem to give countenance to the vast host of Christian robbers, religious freebooters, who fill our churches and congratulate themselves that since they are not under the law but under grace the burden of devoting one tenth of their income to religious uses does not rest upon them to any degree. So these people feel at perfect liberty to indulge their worldliness and social ambitions, their pride and selfishness and love of personal ease. The follies and luxuries and elegancies of life get their full share, while the pressing claims of the sadly crippled benevolent causes are ignored, and the Church's work is crippled for lack of funds. I firmly believe that systematic proportionate beneficence is an essential part of Christianity, and should be so preached without qualification, for covetousness is so hideous a sin and so heinous