AN ANSWER TO PRAYER.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR:1 Sin,—Your correspondent, "De Profundis," in the Spectator of May 31st says that to pray to God to interfere with the machinery, once started, is as unreasonable (all ex- perience shows) as to thank Him for what we conceive to be blessings is superfluous. This does not accord with universal experience. Some years ago I impulsively re- solved to send 220 to a lady who had a coffee.room, and conducted a "mission." I soon realised what an unreason- able impulse it had been. But though entirely contrary to my judgment, after about a fortnight's delay I felt the money must go. I despatched it with the strictest injunctions that there should be no thanks, verbal or by letter. The lady wrote to me that she had been praying for about two months for £20, a quarter's rent; that on Lady-day she had but 221 and hesitated to reduce her resources to 21 ; but that after a few days' delay she paid her rent, whereupon I at once posted to her my two ten-pound notes. I shall never forget the relief it was to end the period of indecision by getting rid of the money. The lady's gratitude to God, not me, was unbounded. I wanted no thanks I sent the money simply because I felt I must ; and never even visited the coffee-room, the cause of this strange experience. I may observe that 220 is a solid sum to expend on mere sentiment; but the pressure on my conscience was no sentiment.—I am,
Previous page
