72 



would have been withheld. We must ask to receive : God has 

 commanded it as a duty, and appointed it as an act of homage 

 to His divinity. 



A familiar instance of the efifect or action of prayer is seen 

 in the relationship of parent and child. How often does the 

 child importune its parent for some gift or gratification that it 

 has set its heart upon^ but which the parent knows would be 

 immediately or prospectively injurious! How does that child 

 interpret the refusal or intentional silence of its parent ? 

 Undoubtedly, at first, with annoyance and displeasure, perhaps 

 mingled with doubt as to the genuineness of the parental feel- 

 ing ; but when of age to appreciate such caution and watchful 

 care, it sees an overruling protection, a benevolent guardian- 

 ship, a jealous love in the apparent unkindness of the act. 



In fact, there does not exist a more graphic, concise, and 

 illustrative definition of our views of the nature and effect of 

 prayer than is found in our Lord's parable of the Publican and 

 Sinner, with which I shall conclude my observations on the 

 subject. 



''Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a 

 Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and 

 prayed thus with himself, — God, I thank Thee that I am not as 

 other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this 

 publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I 

 possess. 



''And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so 

 much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, say- 

 ing, God be merciful to me a sinner. 



" I tell you,^' says Christ, *' this man went down to his house 

 justified rather than the other." 



A discussion ensued, in which the Eev. C. A. Row, Rev. G. Henslow, 

 E. Haughton, Esq., M.D., Kazi Shehbuddeen, the Rev. T. M. Gorman, and 

 the Chairman took part. The Rev. Dr. Robbins having replied, the meeting 

 was adjourned. 



Note. — The paper read and discussed at the Meeting of the 4th March, 

 1872, is inserted in Vol. VI., because it took up some arguments in Sir 

 John Lubbock's recent work, which had not been dealt with in another 

 paper in that volume (see Vol. VI. p. 1). 



