284 
subject. I well remember the astonishment with which I read, about a year 
ago, Professor Tyndall’s objections to prayer, in his popular work on the 
Glaciers of Switzerland. He asks, with something like a tone of contempt, 
how a priest could be so ignorant as to pray for a change of weather. That 
if he only knew the laws of natural philosophy, he might just as well pray for 
a miracle that should cause water to run up-hill, as to pray for rain in a time 
of drought. That the fall of rain was a matter dependent on the position of 
the gulf stream, the direction of the trade winds, and other things governed 
by laws as inexorable as those which prevented water running up-hill ; “ 
and, therefore, to pray for fine weather or for rain in a time of necessity was 
what no highly-cultivated philosopher could do. If this be so, the prayer 
taught us at our mother’s knee from childhood — the petition we address to 
an All-powerful Father, “ Give us this day our daily bread,” is one no natural 
philosopher can ask, nor any one with a highly-cultivated and philosophical 
mind. Now, if I wanted an antidote for this scepticism, for a man unlearned 
in natural or metaphysical philosophy, I would refer him to the study of Pro- 
fessor Kirk’s paper, which we have heard read this evening. I say this, not 
as agreeing with every argument used in that paper, but on account of its 
main scope. Mr. Warington has criticised with great fairness and clearness 
many portions of the paper. But such differences of opinion only point out 
the difficulties of the subject of discussion — difficulties which enter more or 
less into every subject involving metaphysical considerations. I am prepared 
to maintain, in opposition to Professor Tyndall, that the cause of any scientific 
man’s scepticism as to the power of prayer arises not from strictly physical, 
but from metaphysical, difficulties. These difficulties are metaphysical 
subtleties, the cobwebs men have woven out of their own imperfect minds 
and imaginations, and set up as incontestable verities. I think Professor 
Kirk’s paper shows that all the philosophical objections urged against 
prayer resolve themselves into purely metaphysical considerations. You 
cannot discuss the questions touched upon by Professor Kirk without finding 
that the scientific objections urged against prayer are not difficulties arising 
from any truth revealed by God’s works, but mere metaphysical puzzles 
* Professor Tyndall has repeated Iris philosophical objections to such 
prayers as are here alluded to, in the following passage, which concludes his 
paper on “ The Constitution of the Universe ” in the Fort7iightly Review. 
“ A miracle is strictly defined as an invasion of the law of the conservation 
of energy. To create or annihilate matter would be deemed on all hands a 
miracle ; the creation or annihilation of energy would be equally a miracle 
to those who understand the principle of conservation. Hence arises the 
scepticism of scientific men when called upon to join in national prayer for 
changes in the economy of nature. Those who devise such prayers admit 
that the age of miracles is past, and in the same breath they petition for the 
performance of miracles. They ask for fair weather and for rain, but they do 
not ask that water may flow up-hill ; while the man of science, clearly sees 
that the granting of the one petition would be just as much an infringement 
of the law of conservation as the granting of the other. Holding this last to 
be permanent, he prays for neither.”— W. M. 
