103. The Efficacy Of Earnest, Energetic Prayer.
The Efficacy Of Earnest, Energetic Prayer.
There is, in this passage and the context, apparently much to encourage our belief in the efficacy of fervent and sincere prayer. But it is apprehended that a degree of doubt is often experienced in contemplating it, as encouraging such a conviction, from the fact that it seems to express only a self-evident proposition, namely: the effectual prayer of a righteous man is effectual. The propriety of such an interpretation of a passage, in an inspired volume, may well be questioned: hence, on referring to the original, we find the word rendered effectual, to be a derivative from a verb, signifying to labor hard, or energize; and the idea is, “that the earnest, energetic prayer of a righteous man availeth much, or has great efficacy.” This interpretation is sanctioned by Bloomfield and others; and, doubtless, conveys the true import of the passage. And in this view, it has, it must be conceded, great force. The prayer here contemplated, besides being offered—as all prevalent prayer must be—in reliance upon the merits of Jesus Christ, and in submission to the divine will, must, also, be offered by “a righteous man:” not one righteous in the absolute sense—for no one is perfectly holy—but by one who is truly pious—a sincere lover of God. And, moreover, it must be earnest, energetic prayer, or intensely fervent. Such prayer is declared to avail much, or to have great efficacy.
Prayer involves the idea of want on the part of the suppliant, and supposes ability to supply that want on the part of him to whom the prayer is addressed. “It is the preferring of a request upon the one side, and compliance with that request on the other. Man applies: God complies. Man asks a favor: God bestows it.” Here is an antecedent, which is prayer, and a consequent, viz: “The fulfillment of that prayer, in virtue of a mandate from heaven.”
And, moreover, prayer proceeds upon the ground of a real influence, or motive-power, upon the being to whom it is addressed. The child asks a favor of a parent; and, by so doing, aims and expects to move the parent to grant it. And he does move him. Without that prayer, he would not, in a supposable case, receive the favor desired. And, moreover, the very importunity of the child, or his earnest, energetic manner, may be the influential cause wherefore the parent bestows it. Man asks a blessing of God; and the object of his asking is to move or influence God to bestow it. And he does move him. “We hold,” says Dr. Chalmers, “that there is, in prayer, a real interchange between earth and heaven; and that, for the requests of faith and piety, which ascend from the habitations of men below, there do come down actual returns from the upper sanctuary. The asking, upon the one side, is met by a consent, and so a giving, or performance, upon the other.”
It has been said, indeed, that the only object of prayer is “to discipline the affections and so to prepare the mind to receive and appreciate the blessing sought. But this is not true. For, if prayer be designed only to influence the heart of him who prays, why did Christ spend whole nights in prayer? “Being perfect, he required no discipline of the heart. He had no dross to consume, by holding converse with the divine mind.” But, for the full and perfect discharge of the solemn and responsible duties assigned him, he needed the aid of the Father; and, by prayer, he sought to influence the Father to bestow that aid. And he did so influence him. Nor is there any reason to suppose that, without such prayer on the part of Christ, the requisite aid would have been bestowed by the Father. “If there be not a suasion, or actual influence, exerted by prayer, then, indeed,” as Dr. Chalmers remarks, “does there lie a hopeless and impassable barrier between us and Him who is called the Father of our spirits.” On an appeal to the Scriptures, are not these views sustained? Abraham intercedes for Lot; and we read: “And God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities of the plain.” God remembered Abraham’s prayer, or intercession for Lot; and, by that prayer, was moved, or influenced, to send Lot out. God said to Moses, in reference to the children of Israel, who had murmured and rebelled: “Let me alone, that I may destroy this people.” “If you pray for them, my hands are tied,” as an old divine says: “I shall not be able to destroy them.” And again, in reference to the same people, God says: “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet could not my mind be towards this people:” i.e. they could not influence me to bless them. What is the import of these passages, if prayer has no power over God to influence him? Moreover, what doctrine did our Savior design to inculcate on this point, when he uttered the parable of the unjust judge? The judge, a wicked and unjust man, was moved by importunity; he was influenced to avenge the cause of the widow, because she continued to pray. The friend applied to for bread, (Luke 11,) rose, and gave to his friend, because the latter continued to plead. And this is the true import, or designed inculcation, of the passage: “The earnest, energetic prayer of a righteous man has great efficacy it has strong influence; it is a cause, operating upon and powerfully inclining the divine mind to grant the request. To the efficacy of specific prayer, an objection has been made, on the ground of the “unalterable constancy of nature.” To this, it may be replied, that, granting the truth of the Scripture history, the laws of nature have, in past ages, been suspended, or reversed, in numerous instances, in answer to prayer. The apostle James cites an instance—that of Elijah—in connection with the passage we are contemplating, in proof that the earnest, energetic prayer of a righteous man has great efficacy. In answer to the prayer of that distinguished prophet, it rained not on a portion of the earth for the space of several years. But the inquiry is both natural and proper.—Is miraculous interposition to be expected, in answer to prayer, at the present day? We cannot say, with positive assurance, that such interposition never occurs. But the presumption is, that nature proceeds in one invariable order; insomuch that the same antecedents are followed by the same consequents. And this has probably been true since the beginning of the creation, saving the well-accredited miracles of the Jewish and Christian dispensations. “We admit,” says Dr. Chalmers, “that never, in our whole lives, have we witnessed, as the effect of man’s prayer, any infringement made on the known laws of the universe; or that nature, by receding from her constancy, to the extent that we have discovered it, has ever, in one instance, yielded to his supplicating cry. We admit, that, by no importunity from the voice of faith, or from any number or combination of voices, have we seen an arrest, or a shift, laid on the ascertained courses, whether of the material or the mental economy; or a single fulfillment, of any sort, brought about in contravention either to the known properties of any known substances, or to the known principles of any established succession in the history of nature. These are our experiences.”
But, if so, what encouragement have we to pray for blessings which involve, or seem to involve, a supernatural interposition? For instance, suppose a valued friend is sick, and apparently sinking to the grave: May I pray for the special interposition of God? May I pray that skill may be imparted to the physician? May I ask God to direct to such remedies as he will bless?—that he will give efficacy to the means of cure employed? Such prayers are offered. But, if the laws of nature are unchangeable—if God never specially interposes—of what avail is such prayer?
Take another case: A widow, standing on the shore, sees a vessel—on board of which is her only son, and her chief earthly dependence—on the point of foundering. Without the special interposition of God, there is no prospect that she can long survive. Now, has that widow—whom we suppose to be a true child of God—any good reason to believe that her Heavenly Father will answer her cry, made in this day of her trouble? He has said: “Call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will answer thee, and thou shalt glorify me.” But, if the laws of nature hold on with a uniform and undeviating constancy, that vessel cannot survive. Suppose the lone widow, in the midst of her agony is told, by some cold, philosophic objector, that the laws of nature never change. Would this satisfy her? Would this prevent her cries to the Lord of winds and waves? Cry she must, and cry she would.
Now, how shall we meet this difficulty? We may not deny her right to call; nor may we deny the efficacy of prayer. The objection is a formidable one. But, formidable as it is, and inexplicable as it may be, no good man, probably, was ever prevented, in a single instance, from praying, on account of it. God has authorized and encouraged his children to pray; he has promised to hear and answer; and these promises and assurances should dispel all gloomy doubts and fears. God has, in some way, provided for every supplication which shall be offered, from the beginning to the end of time; and with more confidence may the child of God look for a favorable answer to his humble and fervent prayer, than the husbandman may expect a crop of wheat or corn, after all proper preparation therefore. With a view, however, to meet the philosophical objection drawn from the constancy of nature, an hypothesis has been framed by Dr. Chalmers, which is both ingenious and plausible. In substance, it is this:
Every event, in nature or history, has a cause in some prior event which went before it, and that again in another; and we might climb our ascending way from cause to cause, till the investigation has been carried as far as our finite powers permit. But the progression, or causation, stops not here. An angel could carry it further: Gabriel, perhaps, higher still. But of these remote causes, and their modes of succession, we can positively say nothing. For aught we know, they may be under the immediate control of higher beings in the universe; or, like the upper part of a chain, a few of whose closing links are all that are visible to us, they may be directly appended to the throne, and at all times subject to the instant pleasure of a prayer-hearing God. And it may be, by a responsive touch at the higher, and not at the lower part of the progression, that he answers our prayers. It may be not by an act of intervention among those near and visible causes, where intervention would be a miracle; it may be by an unseen, but not less effectual act of intervention, among the remote, and, therefore, the occult causes, that he adapts himself to the various wants, and meets the various petitions of his children. Let us illustrate this principle, by reference to the case of the widow, whose son is in peril. She prays for the rescue of her child. God decides that her prayer shall be answered; but he works no miracle. How, then, shall it be done? Now, it is obvious that “the heat, and the vapor, and the atmospherical precipitates, and the consequent moving forces,” are all subject to Him; and a slight change of temperature, far out of our sight, would produce a change of wind, so as to take the vessel—on board of which is the widow’s son—off from the shore; or would lull the tempest, and smooth the waters, by which the peril would, in a single hour, be removed. These are changes which come to us, so far as we can see, through the natural operations of the laws of nature; and they are changes effected in answer to that woman’s prayer. God may have been influenced by her cries, in this way, to overrule the “elemental war, and hush into silence this wild frenzy of the winds and waves.” “And so,” says Dr. Chalmers, “of other prayers. It is not without instrumentality, but by means of it, that they are answered. The fulfillment is preceded by the accustomed series of cause and effects, and proceeded as far upward as the eye of man can trace the pedigree of sensible causation. Were it by a break any where in the traceable part of this series, that the prayer was answered, then its fulfillment would be miraculous. But, without a miracle, the prayer is answered as effectually. Thus, for example, is met the cry of a people under famine for a speedy and plenteous harvest. Not by the instant appearance of the ripened grain, at the bidding of a voice from heaven; not preternaturally cherished into maturity, in the midst of storms, but ushered onwards by a grateful succession of showers and sunshine.” “The intermediate machinery of nature is not cast aside, but pressed into the service; and the prayer is answered by a secret touch from the finger of the Almighty, which sets all its parts, and all its processes a going.” In like manner, God can give efficacy to medicines—in answer to prayer—which shall appear to us to fall in, and do fall in, with the established courses of nature. “We ask the guardians of our health,” inquires the writer whom we have so often quoted, “how far, upon the pathway of causation, the discoveries of medical science have carried them; and whether, above and beyond their farthest look into the mysteries of our framework, there are not higher mysteries, where a God may work in secret, and the hand of the Omnipotent be stretched forth to heal or destroy? It is thence he may answer prayer. It is from this summit of ascendency, he may direct all the processes of the human constitution, yet without violating, in any instance, the uniformity of the few last and visible footsteps.” (Chalmers’ Works, vol. 2: p. 314. Also, Sermons, vol. i. p. 352.) The author of the “Natural History of Enthusiasm,” advances a still different hypothesis. His conception is, “that the history of nature, and of society, is made up of innumerable progressions, in lines which perpetually cross each other; and which, at their point of intersection, receive a new direction, in virtue of the lateral impulse that has come upon them. When an individual receives an answer to his prayer, the interposition may be made, not in the line which he himself is describing, but in one of those which are to meet him on his path; and at a point, therefore, where even, though the visible constancy of nature should be violated, yet, as being, at the time, beyond the sphere of his observation, it is a violation not visible to him.” He says: “If the special intentions of Providence towards individuals were effected by the aid of supernatural interpositions, the power and presence of the Supreme Disposer might, indeed, be more strikingly displayed, but his skill much less. And herein, especially, is manifested the perfection of the Divine wisdom, that the most surprising conjunctions of events are brought about by the simplest means, and in a manner that is perfectly in harmony with the ordinary course of human affairs. This is, in fact, the great miracle of Providence—that no miracles are needed to accomplish its purposes. Countless series of events are traveling on, from remote quarters, towards the same point; and each series moves in the beaten track of ordinary occurrences; but their intersection, at the very moment in which they meet, shall serve, perhaps, to give a new direction to the affairs of an empire.” (Natural History of Enthusiasm, p. 128.) This hypothesis has one advantage, Dr. Chalmers admits, over the one which he has advanced. In the latter, the interposition, in answer to prayer, must, in some instances, be made in the way of causation, in anticipation of that prayer. But, in the former, it might be, in all instances, “both after the prayer, and beyond the direct cognizance of the suppliant.” This tallies better with our actual expression of those fulfillments, by which relief is often made to come to us from an unexpected quarter; and also with such declarations of Holy Writ as, ‘God being a very present help in the time of trouble.’” To the believer in the truth of God’s word, however, none of these hypotheses, nor any others, are necessary, either for his comfort or his confidence. As to the mode in which his Heavenly Father can answer his prayers, he has little difficulty. That, he leaves to Him who cannot be at a loss how to fulfill his promises. And yet, there are possibly occasions when he may find these suggestions of practical importance. There are minds which affect to see an utter incompatibility between the constancy of nature’s successions and the efficacy of prayer. Now, to nullify such an objection, it is sufficient, oil the part of the believer, to be able to show one possible method, whereby a reconciliation may be made between this doctrine of faith, and the phenomena of experience. It is not necessary, in order to meet the cavils of the captious, or the unbelief of the skeptic, that he proves that this or that hypothesis is true. It is sufficient that he points out a way in which it is possible for God to answer prayer, consistently with the uniformity or unalterable constancy of nature.
Such armor, the believer should hold in readiness to put on, if occasion requires. But, thanks be to God, while there are thousands who do not, in fact, pray, there are few, it is believed—and the number is, we trust, diminishing—who neglect the duty from unbelief in its efficacy. But, whatever may be true of the multitude, the children of God have no excuse—and can they wish one?—for not frequenting a throne of grace. Are you, child of God, at any time, pressed with doubts, fears, difficulties? Yield not to them! pray on!—pray more! You may not comprehend how God can answer your supplications; leave that to him. You may marvel how a feeble worm of the dust should think to influence the mighty Ruler of the universe. Well may you marvel! But it is true—quite true—that prayer has all the purchase upon the throne which is ascribed to it in the Word of Inspiration. It has accomplished wonders in every period of the world, and is still, as it always has been, marvelous, most marvelous, as we concede it to be—