155 
physics, and it does often happen that when men have a great reputation 
for one particular department of knowledge, they fancy that they can main- 
tain the same reputation when they discuss subjects of a totally different 
character. I do not think, however, that the grounds stated to have been 
taken by Professor Tyndall — with whose book I am but imperfectly acquainted 
— have been fully and logically answered. I may be mistaken, having 
arrived late, and only read the paper since I have been in this room. 
Kev. J. W. Buckley. — I should like to put the question in this form : 
How are we to prove in any way, without taking Scripture into account, 
that there is ever any answer to prayer? We do not begin, as I think we 
ought, by proving the truth of the revelation of the Holy Scriptures ; but 
we start with a sort of loose idea that we can “by searching find out God” 
in these matters. I do not myself see how any amount of reasoning upon 
the point can prove that God has answered prayer. A man may say, “ I 
prayed for this ; ” but the question is, “ How do you know that what has 
happened is an answer to your prayer ? ” I do not see any process open to 
the human mind, apart from the acceptance of divine revelation, by which 
it can prove that answers are given to prayer. I therefore demur in limine 
to the discussion of the question whether God hears and answers prayer, 
unless the revelation of the Scriptures be admitted. We may, indeed, 
argue thus as to the probability that God answers prayers — If you admit a 
God — a Supreme Being — at all, it seems to be a most unnatural thing to 
take up the notion as a truth, that He has constituted us as we are, with our 
bodies and minds, hearts and souls, so wonderfully formed, and yet that 
He has altogether withheld His mind from any communication with ours. 
I hold that this is an unreasonable way of looking at the matter ; that it is- 
a very extraordinary position to take up. If we once admit ourselves to 
have been constituted, body and soul, by a divine, omnipotent, and in- 
telligent -Spirit, as I hold we must do, because we find ourselves here with 
remarkable faculties ; — if a Being superior to ourselves made us, we can 
reason on until our reason drives us to this irresistible conclusion, although 
the Being who is the subject of our reasoning is still totally incomprehensible ; 
— that there must have existed in the eternity past an infinite and all-powerful 
Spirit. And when we are driven to this by our reason, we find ourselves 
almost obliged to admit, that it would be a most extraordinary thing if w r e 
were shut out from all communication with that infinite and omnipotent 
Spirit. But then, by endeavouring to prove this communication, without 
asking whether this infinite Spirit has revealed anything respecting itself, we 
are, if I may use the comparison, trying to perform the play of Hamlet 
with Hamlet left out,— -dealing with a question without touching the founda- 
tion upon which it must be based. I therefore demur to the discussion of 
the question whether prayer is answered or not, without taking the evidence 
of the Holy Scriptures into account ; because, if you shut the Scriptures 
out altogether, you are omitting one very considerable and indispensable 
element. I was glad to hear a gentleman, who has already spoken, say that 
Professor Tyndall admitted that there was something beyond what he could 
M 2 
