[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR:1
Sin,—I have read with much interest the letters in your paper
upon the efficacy of prayer. I now venture to intrude the few following remarks upon that subject, as it appears to me that your correspondents have entirely overlooked or not considered the points to which I wish to draw attention.
The apparent answering of any prayer is no proof that it has- received the special attention of the Almighty ! I believe this will be rendered clear by the following observations :—(1.) The exist- ence of a God is considered admitted, and that His attributes are omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, infinite love and infinite perfection. (2.) As all thiugs emanate from Him, and He- being perfection itself, it follows that his works must be perfect. Putting aside all considerations of the morality of man praying to, infinite perfection to alter creation for his especial benefit and tem- porary necessity, is it possible for the Almighty to change what is?. It must be borne in mind the attributes of God prove that altera- tion of His plans is impossible, because to presume the possibility of change is at once denying the infinite perfection of the Almighty. (3.) Can man, remembering always the attributes of God, deny that when a prayer has presumably been answered, the same results would not have followed had the prayer never been uttered?' If He is infinite perfection, He must have created all that is requisite for man, and to request Him to provide other than that which exists, implies a complete want of faith in His eternal providence. Of course, if these attributes should be denied, God is at once reduced to the position of a more or less powerful anct more or less beneficent Being, according to the ideal of any indi-
Previous page
