Makcu 30, 1883.1 



KNO>A^LEDGE 



189 



NATURAL LAWS. 



A PEACE-OFFERING. 

 Bt Richard A. Proctor. 



THE correspondenco arising froiu what I said, not at all 

 thinking to arouse controversy, about the uniform 

 action of natural laws, so far as science extends its survey, 

 reminds nie somewhat of a story told by a friend of miue 

 at a dinner of the New York Lotos Club, to which I was 

 invited, in the autumn of 1875. The story is old enough, 

 I dare say ; but it was new to me, and may be new to 

 some of my readers. As nearly as I recall it, it ran thus : 

 Davie and Sandy, two Hielandmen, are the dranuUis per- 

 eonte ; the time some week day. Sandy, perplexed by a 

 profound scientilic <iuestion, appeals to his friend — "Davie, 

 can ye tell me ? Is a pumple-pee a pird or a peast ? " 

 Quoth Davie, rather angrily, after reflection, " Hech, 

 Sandie, mon ; dinna ye ken that ye mauna speer 

 releegeous questions on ilka day ^ " A question which to 

 me had no semblance of religion in it, is regarded, I lind, 

 by many as altogether religious ; and in comments upon 

 what I said, the old and really rather foolish idea crops out 

 that students of science are opponents of religion, glad of 

 any opportunity to sneer and scoll' at it. To one who holds, 

 as I do, that to sneer or scotf at views held in esteem by 

 others is simply to be rude and ill-mannered ; that the man 

 is most unhappy who is devoid of religion; and that in its 

 sociological aspect religion is the cement which holds 

 together alike the foundation and the superstructure of 

 society, it would be painful, if it were not absurd, to be 

 thought capable of what some few (only, I trust and 

 believe) of my readers seem to impute to me. 



I cannot very well either publish or discuss all the letters 

 which have reached me on this subject ; because they treat 

 of the religious aspect of the matter, which I had not 

 introduced. But I will take one very kindly letter, ac- 

 companied by a pamphlet for my perusal, by the Rev. 

 Canon R. H. Gray, and consider first the bearing of his 

 thoughtful and very fair discussion of a very difficult sub- 

 ject, and then very briefly note what I take to be the view 

 which men who reason at all on the question ought to take, 

 not of the subject itself, but of the diversity of views 

 relating to it. 



Mr. Gray asks the question, " Should the increase of 

 our knowledge of the laws of nature stop our prayers 

 which have to do with nature 1" [There is a comma after 

 the word prayers in his pamphlet, but I think from the 

 reasoning, that the comma is a printer's addition altering 

 the sense, and that Mr. Gray refers to those prayers which 

 have to do with nature, not intending to assert that all 

 prayers relate to natural processes.] He arrives at the 

 following views as worthy of consideration : — 



1. Where we have absolutely clear evidence of the way 

 in which natural laws — or God's ordinances — operate, we 

 ought perhaps to reverently tell Him no more of desires 

 to which those ordinances run counter ; yet, 



2. One must not keep silence as to the possibility of a 

 miracle, as it is called, being worked in answer to prayer. 

 But, 



3. We may believe that where science has not yet clearly 

 recognised the operation of laws, or their precise nature, 

 there may be possibility of variation, according to the will 

 of God, adapted to the passing needs of his people. " Things 

 may be as they seem to be, some ruled by an unchanging, 

 some by a changing Will ; so that while with fresh light we 

 may transfer events from the latter class into the former, 

 still the classes, being really two, will never blend." 



All this is perfectly logical. Every one will admit the 



reasonableness of (1) ; no one can expect that the diiticult 

 question touched in (2) will be decided by all men in the 

 same way ; and assuredly, science has not proved, and is 

 not likely to prove, that the idea suggested in (3) is 

 certainly erroneous. 



Still, with regard to (3), the only question which really 

 concerns us, it is, perhaps, natural that science, seeing how 

 the law of uniformity, which has been extended farther 

 and farther throughout the domain over which science 

 extends its survey, is absolutely continuous within that 

 domain, imperfect though our survey of portions of ib may 

 be. Nor is the idea of changing Will one which commends 

 itself to all religiously disposed minds (a description apply- 

 ing, be it noted, to many — I believe most — scientific 

 minds). Many wiU recall a certain description of One 

 with whom is neither change nor shadow of turning, and 

 regard (3) as inadmissible on religious grounds as well as 

 on scientific ones. 



Again, it must be admitted that we have very high 

 authority for believing that prayer, intended to express 

 wants felt by us, is not only not an essential part of 

 religion, but is not desirable. In that most beautiful 

 chapter of the New Testament in which true religion is 

 distinguished from the show of religion, a chapter which 

 everyone should know by heart (from my eighteenth year 

 I have known it by heart in the original), we are told that 

 those are mistaken who think they will be heard for their 

 much speaking, that our wants are known before we tell 

 them, and that therefore prayer should take a form very 

 unlike that recently recommended, and later (in relation 

 to another matter) very widely advertised in our newspapers. 

 He who spoke thus was held, we are told by many, as one 

 who seofled at those outward observances which the 

 Pharisees held dear. And very likely, what he thus taught 

 was held to be very dangerous. Yet I think it is now very 

 generally held to be sound doctrine. 



But I do not care to inquii-e further whether prayer for 

 a change of weather is right or wrong, or even whether the 

 question is a religious one or not. That the question is a 

 religious one to many is enough to make me wish to keep 

 it in future out of Knowledge, for I wish to offend none 

 of good faith and good will. But in leaving it, and (out 

 of consideration for many good friends) all questions of the 

 kind, I would make a few remarks which bear on the way 

 in which persons who take difl'erent views about the 

 question should view eadt. other. Let us for a moment 

 compare the Almighty to an earthly ruler of great power, 

 great wisdom, and great love for his people, whom he 

 regards as chOdren, and who regard him as a kindly father. 

 Let us suppose his rules and ordinances to be very much 

 better, much farther-sighted, and more general in their 

 applicability than his people can possibly understand, inso- 

 much that it had never happened within the knowledge of 

 any of them that it had been necessary to interrupt or 

 modify for an instant the action of any of those 

 ordinances. Let it further be supposed that all the 

 wants of every one of this ruler's people were without 

 fail brought to his knowledge. Now, this being so, 

 we can very well imagine that a number of this ruler's 

 people would think it well to tell him of their troubles, 

 almost as though he had no knowledge of them, and even 

 to ask, where no better remedy seemed available, that his 

 ordinances might for a short time be slightly modified, i£ 

 necessary, in order to bring them relief. One can even 

 suppose that in his kindliness he would take pleasure in 

 hearing their simple supplications, nay, though it seems 

 inconsistent with the idea of the perfect wicdom of his 

 ordinances, that he would occasionally see fit to do what 

 they asked him. But it is also conceivable that others, and 



