167 
The question here arises then, what is the effect on the mind of the 
receiver ? Simple gladness or satisfaction at the alleviation that had come 
would not, could not, he the entire result in any case but the first supposed. 
In none of the other cases would the man have the same feeling. Various 
shades of feeling, quite distinct from the mechanical result, would show with 
delicate accuracy the man’s inward and personal appreciation of his deliver- 
ance, in some relation to his deliverance— feelings which he would think it 
base to disavow , feelings which belong to his own character, and the value of 
which he would simply be ashamed to think wholly mechanical. On these 
feelings the man might, or might not, rightly act according to a high 
standard ; but he would know that he ought, and he would not like to think 
his own volition was in such case “ excluded from the economy of nature.” 
We shall say no more at present as to the “ conception of a moral world,” 
which, we have observed, every one must form before he discourses on the 
Christian theory and practice of prayer. Enough is suggested, and more 1 is 
not needed, to show that mechanical, or material causes will not explain all 
phenomena, and that will, and personal intelligence, have some place in our 
world. Materialists appeal with confidence at times to Mr. Herbert Spencer 
as their “ thinker.” Will Mr. Herbert Spencer’s admission that religion is, 
per se, a fact not to be ignored, satisfy Professor Tyndall ? Or will Max 
Muller’s painful “ Science of Religion ? ” Or shall we ask him to ponder a 
little the words of Mr. John Morley, in his recent book on Voltaire, as we 
have seen them quoted : 
“ There is an unknown Element at the bottom of the varieties, whether we 
agree to call that element a Volition of a superior Being, or an undiscovered 
set of facts in embryology.” 
Truer thinkers than the experimentalists can thus conceive a possible place 
for that “ volition,” the announcement of which is the announcement of the 
“ moral world,” which Christianity and humanity alike assert. 
Then, finally, let us think of Prayer as the act and habit of an Agent w r ho 
originates thought, will, desire, and who is one of a community of such agents, 
mutually acting on each other, beneath a moral Supreme Governor, whose 
rule is inseparable from the conception of a vast Community of such respon- 
sible agents. (See again “ The Analysis of Human Responsibility.”) 
As CJiristians, we derive our notions of prayer from Christ our Master. 
He has taught us that prayer is the expression of our will, and so discovers 
our own character. Nothing so truly determines what we are as our real wishes. 
If we put our Avishes into words, they are either petitions to men, or prayers to 
God. In the latter case, we have to consider that, putting our will into words 
before our Supreme moral Governor, we are speaking to Him who also has 
a will as to everything ; and as He is our perfect ruler, we ought to defer 
to His Avill in expressing our own. We secure the higher morality of our 
own acts of will by conforming in detail to the Supreme will. To Christians 
the ascertainment of that Supreme will is no impossible or unrewarded aim 
of the faith and the reason ; just as the conscientious ethical effort of any 
