-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cee59e6a992a4256a6b592e5165db1d0.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=NdCTjkTHc5dP5oCkk3HfLiuyRrBoyP6qDpeIT7R2Naiky9qbaY2pUPa0obl8I3NwUPAP13dI4Fev0NuULS4-KUW38j0YA9dQmBwPuF9uQU9DY5JvdR2p7AzWOYn8dhvrwE6NArTid49s141gozrSRk4hDYQm3EVfAdNx%7EVX5pXGlH75kkIhSAceSmMbsI44buD4JRixkHmlvWsTR%7EKLQ%7EqHTKvlpLCsJf%7E5XI1BQ6JnpnGR8HowV%7Etome2khHwPjX-EvsfuuATcAMXmhvy-hdA3j292lwobLJqg%7EXj3kS1b7NN0ZSvTZNqmiGVt5lz34sNSCFq3iwuJvs13Dcmuung__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bf7873041cc5d2e76e9037133e4edddb
PDF Text
Text
THE
BY
Q-. W. FOOTE.
. Second Edition, with a New Introduction.^
PRICE ONE PENNY.
' -j.
..
~~
■
------------------------------------------~
LQNDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1884.
�INTR OR U C TI 0 N.
The following Essay was originally published, four years ago, under
the title of “ The Futility of Prayer.” I now republish it under the
more forcible title of “ The Folly of Prayer.” My object in this
change is not simply, as Hosea Biglow says, to “combine morrul truth
with phrases sich as strike,” although a great deal may be said for
that policy. The longer I live, the more deeply I feel the necessity of
attacking superstition in the plainest language. I am also convinced
that Heine was right when he said “ the superfluous is harmful.” Pro
gress is so huge a task, so arduous and painful, that any diversion of
human energy into unprofitable channels is a disaster. If Prayer is
futile, it is a folly.
This new edition gives me an opportunity of adding a little to my
Essay, of bringing it, so to speak, up to date. My space is limited,
and I must be succinct.
We are now in the midst of a political crisis. The Peers are showing
their historic qualities of selfishness, stupidity and arrogance. They
are trying to thwart the nation’s will with respect to the Franchise as
they have tried to thwart it with respect to every great reform in the
past. They seem bent on holding true to their evil traditions, and
proving themselves to the very end the obstinate foes of progress.
Fortunately, however, their day of doom is rapidly drawing near.
Never since the Long Parliament locked the door of the Upper House
and turned the Lords adrift has there been such a storm of indigna
tion against the Peerage. Mend them or end them, says Mr. Morley ;
and “ End them ” is the responsive shout from the people. Yes, the
Lords are happily wrecking their own craft. They will lose both ship
and cargo in the end. With their political power will go all hope of
retaining their bloated estates. Was there ever such fatuity since
the French nobles invited the Revolution ? If this is the way God
endues them with “ grace, wisdom and understanding,” it is a very
remarkable proof of the efficacy of prayer.
Candor compels me to admit, however, that her Majesty continues
to flourish in “ health and wealth,” according to the formula of our
Church Prayer Book. Yet we need not resort to prayer for an expla
nation of this fact. Her Majesty’s wealth is provided by the nation,
without any contribution by Providence ; and her health is protected
by the ease which our constitutional monarchy allows her to enjoy.
So far from trusting in the Lord, except at church, she never fails to
appeal to us for the support of her numerous offspring and their
extensive families. When our lavish generosity is considered, there
seems remarkably little scope for the bounty of Providence.
I omitted in my Essay to mention the recovery of the Prince of
Wales, many years ago, from gastric fever, and the national Thanks
giving Service held in St. Paul’s Cathedral. What wild orgies of
religious excitement were worked up by the London press, and notably
by that eminently pious journal the Daily Telegraph ! How we were
bidden to watch the great national wave of prayer surging against the
�THE FOLLY OF PRAYER.
“ These was,” says Luther in his Table Talk, “ a great
drought, as it had not rained for a long time, and the grain
in the field began to dry up, when Dr. M. L. prayed con
tinually and said finally with heavy sighs: 0 Lord, pray
regard our petition in behalf of thy promise. ... I know
that we cry to thee and sigh desirously ; why dost thou not
hear us ? And the very next night there came a very fine
fruitful rain.” From Luther to Sammy Hicks the Yorkshireman is a far cry, but an episode of his history somewhat
resembles this naive story of the great lieformer. Sammy
Hicks was a miller and a Methodist, and once while looking
forward to a Love Feast, at which cakes were consumed, he
was sorely troubled by a dead calm that lasted for days
together, and caused a complete stoppage of his windmill.
It so happened that all the flour was exhausted before the
calm was broken, and on the very eve of the Love Feast there
was none left for the cakes. In this extremity recourse was
had to prayer. Sammy himself, who excelled in that line,
petitioned Heaven for a breath of wind to fill his sails. In a
few moments the cheeks of the suppliants were fanned by a
gentle zephyr, which rapidly grew to a strong breeze.
Around went the sails of Sammy’s mill until enough flour
was ground to make the Love Feast cakes, when the wind
suddenly subsided and died away as miraculously as it came.
How amusing are both Luther and Sammy Hicks, in these
instances, to the educated minds of to-day! Yet amongst
the ignorant and those who are not imbued with the spirit
of Science, the old superstition of prayer still lingers, and ever
and anon betrays itself in speech and act. Whatever remnant
of superstition exists the priests are very careful to foster.
Accordingly, whenever an opportunity occurs, they stimulate
popular folly and make themselves the laughing-stock or
contempt of the wise and thoughtful. In Catholic countries
the miracles of the Middle Ages are even now, in this age
�Introduction.
iii.
throne of grace 1 Well, the Prince recovered, thanks to a good con
stitution and the highest medical skill. But the sky-pilots saw their
chance. They insisted that the Prince’s recovery was due to prayer.
They organised a huge farce at St. Paul’s, where in the nation’s name
they thanked God for his marvellous mercy. But curiously, amidst all
this delirium, the authorities retained a little sagacity. God was duly
thanked, but the doctors were not forgotten : one of them was knighted,
and all were handsomely rewarded. Deity had the empty praise, and
the physicians the solid pudding.
Since then we have seen the United States praying for the recovery
of their President. Week after week Science fought with Death over
his sick bed, and the awful struggle was watched by a trembling world.
Would he live, would he die ? “0 God, let him live,” prayed millions
in church and chapel. “ 0 God, spare him, my husband, my darling,”
cried the agonised wife. But his life ebbed slowly away amidst a
nation's prayers for his recovery. Why did not God save General
Garfield ? Is the Almighty a respecter of persons after all ? Or is he
so monarchical that he will not aid the President of a Republic? Can
Christians explain this without denying the efficacy of prayer or im
peaching the character of God ?
Now a word for the cholera. This frightful scourge has ravaged
France and Italy this summer and roused the latent superstition of the
people. In some cases the Catholics demanded religious processions
through the streets and public prayers to the Virgin. But the Secular
authorities firmly resisted this clamor, and they were sometimes backed
up by the higher priests, who knew that undue excitement and con
sequent exhaustion would only make the multitude easier victims to
the plague. The English press chronicled these cases of superstition
as they might record the eccentricities of the worshippers of Mumbo
Jumbo. Yet our Church Prayer Book has a definite form of “ prayer in
time of sickness.”
This leads me to enquire whether our sky-pilots are sincere. I fancy
not. Let us judge them by their practice instead of their profession.
What swarms of them invade our health resorts in summer! How
they all take a long holiday when they can ’ Go to fashionable water
ing-places like Bath, and observe the large floating population of sky
pilots in search of health and rich widows. When they fall ill they
act like other men. They consult Dr. Science instead of Dr. Provi
dence, and if possible scuttle off from the Lord’s vineyard to the seaside.
Faith is the same in both places, but the air is different. Prayer
works better with oxygen than with carbonic acid gas.
Trust in God and keep your powder dry, said Cromwell, Yes, but
will faith help you if you get your powder wet ? This is a very onesided doctrine. Well does James Thomson sing in “ Bill Jones on
Prayer”:—
Which seems to mean—You doth work.
God helpeth him who helps himself,
Have all the trouble and pains,
They preach to us as a fact,
Which seems to lay up G od on the shelf, While God, that ind o 1 en t grand 0 Id Turk,
Gets credit for the gains.
And leave the man to act.
I despair of improving on that.
can, once for all.
November 1, 1884.
It sums up the matter, as genius only
G. W. FOOTE.
�The Folly of Prayer.
5
of railways and electric telegraphs, repeated before the
shrines of new-fangled saints. Pilgrims journey to Lourdes
and other holy places, where the credulity of the multitude is
equalled by the imposture of their priests. The blood of St.
Januarius still liquifies annually at Naples, precious relics
heal all manner of diseases, and the Virgin appears to prayer
ful peasants and hysterical nuns. In England these things do
not happen, for there is not faith enough to make them
possible. Yet here also the Catholic priest gets souls out of
purgatory by the saying of masses which have to be duly
paid for; and our own Protestant priests, who have re
linquished almost every peculiar function of their office, still
retain one, that of standing between us and bad weather.
We may call them our Rain Doctors, a name applied to the
African medicine-men, who beat gongs and dance and shout,
to scare off the sun and bring down rain when the land is
parched with drought. The difference between a bishop of
the English Church praying for sunshine and an African
medicine-man howling for wet, is purely accidental and no
wise intrinsic. Intellectually they stand, on the same level,
the sole difference being that one goes through his perform
ance in a vulgar and the other in a high-bred fashion.
Perhaps there is another difference ; one may be honest and
the other dishonest, one sincere and the other hypocritical.
Cato wondered how two augurs could meet without laughter,
and probably it would be comical to witness the meeting of
two friendly parsons after a lusty bout of prayer for fine
weather.
In 1879 we were afflicted with a descent of rain scarcely
paralleled in the century. Through the spring and
through the summer the deluge persisted, and each month
seemed to bring more violent storms than its predecessor.
Yet our Rain Doctors kept quiet as mice. Perhaps they
reflected that it was scarcely politic to pray for sunshine
until the Americans had ceased to telegraph the approach of
fresh tempests. How different from the African Rain
Doctors, who will pray for rain while the sun glares torrid
and implacable, and no cloudlet mitigates the awful azure of
heaven! But, deceived by a brief spell of fine weather in
the middle of July, they suddenly plucked up courage and
proceeded to counsel Omniscience. The result was woeful.
On the very next Sunday after prayers for fine weather
�6
The Folly of Prayer.
began to be offered, a terrific storm burst over the land, and
for weeks after the rain was almost incessant. During one
week in August only seventeen hours of sunshine were
registered in London. The harvest was spoiled, about forty
million pounds’ worth of produce was lost to the country, and
farmers looked in the face of ruin. This was the answer to
prayer !
Yet the votaries of superstition and their priestly abettors
will not admit the futility of prayer. Their reasoning is like
the gambler’s “heads I win, tails you lose ” ! All the facts
that tell for their case are allowed to count, and all that
tell against it are excluded. If what they pray for happens,
that proves the efficacy of prayer ; if it does not happen, that
proves nothing at all. Such is the logic of superstition in
every age and clime.
Notwithstanding the occasional outbursts of our Rain
Doctors, it is evident that the doctrine of Prayer is being
gradually refined away, like many other doctrines of theology.
It originated in simpler times, when people thought that
something tangible could be got by it. Whenever danger or
difficulty confronted our barbarous ancestors, they naturally
looked to the. god or gods of their faith for assistance. If
any transcendental philosopher or mystical theologian had
told them that prayer was not a practical request but a
spiritual aspiration, they would have answered with a stare of
astonishment.
Even the New Testament embodies the
belief of the savage, although in a slightly refined form, and
the Lord’s Prayer contains a distinct request for daily bread.
Before the advent of science, when men ignorantly and
unskilfully wrestled with the manifold evils of life, their
prayers for aid were grimly earnest, and often the last cry of
despair. Fire, earthquake, flood, famine, and pestilence
afflicted them sorely; often they gazed blankly on sheer
ruin ; and in lifting their supplicating hands and eyes and
voice, they besought no spiritual anodyne, but a real outward
relief. The hand of supernatural power was expected to
visibly interpose on their behalf. Now, however, the idea of
prayer is greatly changed for all save a few fools or fanatics.
Educated Christians, for the most part, do not appear to think
that objective miracles are wrought in answer to prayer.
They think that now God only works subjective miracles, and
by operating upon men’s hearts, produces results that would
�The Folly of Prayer.
not happen in the natural course of things. According to
this subtler form of superstition, outward circumstances are
never interfered with, but our inward condition is changed to
suit them. Thus, if a ship were speeding onward to some
fatal danger of simoon or sunken reef, God would not alter
the circuit of the storm, or remove the rocks from the ship’s
path, but if he deigned to interpose would work upon the
captain’s mind and induce him to deviate from his appointed
course. If an innocent man were sentenced to be hung, God
would not break the rope or strike the executioner blind, but he
might influence the Home Secretary to grant a reprieve. Or
if in a thunder-storm we had sought the shelter of a tree,
God would not divert the lightning, although he might, just
before it struck the tree, whisper that we had better move on.
This last refinement of the doctrine of the efficacy of prayer
is very intelligible to the psychologist. Physical science has
thoroughly demonstrated the reign of law in the material
universe, and educated people are indisposed to look for
miracles in that direction, notwithstanding the occasional
attempts of our rain doctors to cure bad weather with spiritual
medicines. But mental science has produced much less effect.
Man’s mind is still supposed to be a chaos, haunted and
mysteriously influenced by a phantasmal free-will. Save by
a few philosophers and students, the reign of law is not sus
pected to obtain there. Accordingly, the miracles which
were thought to occur in the material world are now rele
gated to the spiritual world—a ghoul-haunted region wherein
there survives a home for them. Yet progress is being made
here also, and we may confidently predict that as miracles
have been banished from the domain of matter, so they will
be banished from the domain of mind. The reign of law, it
will be perceived, is universal within us as without us. It is
manifested alike in the growth of a blade of grass and in the
silent procession of the stars ; alike in tumult and in peace,
in the loud overwhelming storm or engulphing earthquake,
and in the soft-falling rain or golden sunshine, nurturing the
grass in a thousand valleys and ripening the harvest on a
thousand plains : and no less apparent in the noblest leaps of
passion and the highest flights of thought, but binding all
things in one harmonious whole, so that the brain of Shake
speare and the heart of Buddha acknowledge kinship with the
mountains, waves and skies.
�8
The Folly of Prayer.
Meanwhile the sceptic asks the believer in prayer to justify
it, and show that it is not a mere superstitious and foolish
waste of energy. The proper spirit in which to approach
this subject is the rational and not the credulous. The
efficacy of prayer is a question to be decided by the methods
of science. If efficacious, prayer is a cause, and its presence
may be detected by experiment or investigation. The ex
perimental method is the best, but there is difficulty in apply
ing it, as the believers perversely refuse to undertake their
share of the process. Professor Tyndall, on behalf (I think)
of Sir Henry Thompson, has proposed that a ward in some
hospital should be set apart, and the patients in it specially
prayed for, so that it might be ascertained whether more
cures were effected in it than in other wards containing
similar patients, and tended by the same medical and nursing
skill. This proposal the theologians fought shy of ; and one
of them (Dr. Litttedale) gravely rebuked Professor Tynda.ll
for presuming to think that God Almighty would submit to
be made the subject of a scientific experiment. Theologically
there is much force in this objection, although scientifically
and morally there is none. A universal Father would as
suredly welcome such a test of his goodness, but the proud
irascible God of theology would be sure to frown upon it, and
signalise his preference for the fine old plan of closing our
eyes while opening our mouths to receive his benefactions.
There is, however, a way to take him as it were by a side-wind.
There are certain things impossible even to omnipotence.
Sidney Smith (I think) said that God himself could not make
a clock strike less than one. Nor can any powei' revoke what
has already occurred.
“ Not heaven itself upon the past has power,”
as Dryden tells us. The past is irrevocable, and we may in
vestigate it for the purpose of ascertaining whether prayer
has been efficacious, without the least fear of being baffled by
any power in the heavens above, in the earth beneath, or in the
waters under the earth. People have prayed enough in the
past—far more, indeed, than they are likely to pray in the
future—and if we find that their prayers have been futile,
the whole question at issue must be considered as practically
decided in the negative.
Let us dismiss all appeals to individual experience, and deal
only with broad classes of facts. It is quite impossible in any
�The Folly of Prayer.
9
particular case to determine whether prayer has been answered
or not, even when the object besought has been wholly ob
tained. A single result is so often produced by a combination
of causes, some obvious and direct, and others obscure and
indirect, that we cannot absolutely say whether the natural
agencies have operated alone or in conjunction with a super
natural power. If after long and fervent prayers a precious
life has been spared, it cannot be affirmed that prayer was a
cause of the recovery, since the sick person might have re
covered without it. Nor, on the other hand, can it be affirmed
that prayer was not a cause, since the sick person might have
died without it. Our ignorance in such cases precludes us from
deciding one way or the other. The only way to neutralise this
is to examine general categories, to take whole classes of persons,
and see whether those who pray get what they ask for any
more than those who do not pray, or if classes of persons who
are prayed for by others are more favored than those who
enjoy no such advantage.
Pursuing this line of inquiry, Mr. Francis dalton, the author
of a remarkable work on “Hereditary Genius,” was led many
years ago to collect and collate statistics relative to the subject
of prayer, which he subsequently published in the Fortnightly
Review of August, 1872. Mr. Galton’s article did not, so far
as I am aware, attract the attention it deserved. Its facts and
conclusions are of great importance, and the remainder of my
own essay will be largely indebted to it.
Let us take first the case of recovery from sickness. It has
been frequently remarked that sickness is more afflictive than
death itself, and it is common for persons who suffer from it,
if they are at all of a religious turn of mind, to pray for relief
and restoration to health. Their relatives also pray for
them.
However pious men may be, they always submit
to Omniscience their own view of the case when their lives
are in the least degree endangered ; and however fer
vently they believe in the eternal and ineffable felicities of
heaven, they are scarcely ever content to leave this vale of tears.
They desire as long a continuance of life on this earth as the
sceptic does. Often, indeed, they repine far more than the
sceptic at the ordinance of fate. Now, as a matter of fact, is
it found that pious persons of a prayerful disposition recover
from sickness more frequently than worldly persons who are
not in the habit of praying at all ? If so, the medical pro
�10
The Folly of Prayer.
fession would long ago have discovered it, and prayer would
have taken a recognised place among sanative agencies. On
this point Mr. Galton writes as follows :—
“ The medical works of modern Europe teem with records of in
dividual illnesses and of broad averages of disease, but I have been
able to discover hardly any instance in which a medical man of any
repute has attributed recovery to the influence of prayer. There is
not a single instance, to my knowledge, in which papers read before
statistical societies have recognised the agency of prayer either on
disease or on anything else. The universal habit of the scientific world
to ignore the agency of prayer is a very important fact. To fully
appreciate the ‘ eloquence of the silence ’ of medical men, we must bear
in mind the care with which they endeavor to assign a sanitary value
to every influence. Had prayers for the sick any notable effect, it is
incredible but that the doctors, who are always on the watch for such
things, should have observed it, and added their influence to that of
the priests towards obtaining them for every sick man. If they abstain
from doing so, it is not because their attention has never been awakened
to the possible efficacy of prayer, but, on the contrary, that although
they have heard it insisted on from childhood upwards, they are unable
to detect its influence.”
It thus appears that prayer is a medicine only in the
pharmacopoeia of the priests. Many doctors rather dislike
it. A medical friend of mine, who hated the sight of a
parson, used always to keep any member of the clerical
fraternity waiting outside the sick-room door in extreme
cases, until it was certain that death would supervene. He
would then allow the reverend gentleman to go through his
performance, knowing that he could do no harm. My friend
said that when his patients required absolute repose their
nerves were often agitated in his absence by obtrusive and
officious priests.
A class of persons who are specially and generally prayed
for are kings and queens and other members of royal
families. A high value is always set on things which cost
a great deal. Royal personages are very expensive, and we
naturally esteem and love them according to their cost.
Animated by an amiable desire that they may long live to
spend the money we delight to shower upon them, we pray
that God will prolong their existence beyond that of ordi
nary mortals, “ Grant her in health and wealth long to
live,” is the prayer offered up for the Queen in our State
churches, and the same petition is made in hundreds of
Nonconformist chapels. If, then, there be any efficacy in
�The Folly of Prayer.
11
prayer, kings should enjoy a greater longevity than their
subjects. We do not, however, find this to be the case.
The average age of ninety-seven members of royal houses
who lived from 1758 to 1843, and survived their thirtieth
year was 54-04 years, which is nearly two years less than
the average age of the shortest-lived of the well-to-do
classes, and more than six years less than that of the longest.
Sovereigns are literally the shortest lived of all who have the
advantage of affluence. In their case it is evident that
prayer has been absolutely of no avail.
Another class of men very much prayed for are the
clergy. They pray for themselves, and as they all profess to
be called to the ministry by the Holy Ghost their prayers
should be unusually efficacious. If there be any faith capable
of removing mountains, they should possess it. If the
fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much, the fervent
prayer of a parson should avail exceedingly.
Now the
clergy pray not only for spiritual light and help, but also
for temporal blessings. They like to prosper here as well
as hereafter, and are adepts in the sublime art, reprobated
by Jesus but luminously expounded and forcibly commended
by Dr. Binney, of making the best of both worlds. They
believe in heaven, but are in no haste to get there, being
content to defer occupation of the heavenly mansions in
store for them until they can no longer inhabit the snug
residences provided for them here. With a laudable desire
to enjoy the bird-in-the-hand to the uttermost before resort
ing to the bird-in-the-bush, which is sure to await their
convenience, they naturally pray for health, and therefore
for long life, since health and longevity are inseparable
friends. Yet we do not find that they live longer than
their less pious brethren. The average age attained to by
the clergy from 1758 to 1843, according to Mr. Galton’s
statistics was 69-49 years, while that of lawyers was 68-14,
and of medical men 67-31. Here is a slight advantage on
the side of the clergy, but it is amply accounted for by the
greater ease and comfort so many of them enjoy, and the
general salubrity of their surroundings. The difference is,
however, reversed when a comparison is made between dis
tinguished members of the three classes—that is to say,
between persons of sufficient note to have had their lives
recorded in a biographical dictionary. Then we find the
�12
The Folly oj Prayer.
respective mean ages of the clergy, lawyers and doctors, are
66'42, 66
5
*1
and 67
0
*4,
the clergy being the shortest lived
of the three. Thus they succumb sooner than the members
of secular professions to a heavy demand on their energies.
Prayer does not protect them from sickness, does not recover
them when they are laid low. or in the least prolong their
precious lives. They are no more favored than the ungodly ;
one fate befalls them both. In their case also prayer has
been absolutely of no avail.
The same law obtains with regard *o missionaries. They
t
are not miraculously protected from sickness or danger,
from perils by night or the pestilence that walketh by day,
The duration of life among them is accurately proportioned
to the hazards of their profession. Yet theirs is a case
wherein prayer should be peculiarly effectual. Arriving in
a remote region of the earth, they are almost powerless until
they have acquired, a thorough knowledge of the language
and habits of the people. They are engaged in the Lord’s
work, ahd if any persons are watched over by him they
should be. Yet at dangerous stations one missionary after
another dies shortly after arrival, and their efforts are thus
literally wasted, while the work naturally suffers because
the Lord does not economise the missionary power -which
has been provided for it.
Ships also have sunk with
missionaries on board before they could even reach their
destination; and the Lord has so far refrained from work
ing subjective miracles on their behalf, that missionaries
have been in some cases digested in the stomachs of the
very savages whose souls they had journeyed thousands of
miles to convert.
Parents are naturally very anxious as to their offspring,
and it is to be presumed that the children of pious fathers
and mothers are earnestly and constantly prayed for. This
solicitude antedates birth, it being generally deemed a mis
fortune for a child to be still-born, and often a serious evil
for death to deprive it of baptism, without which salvation is
difficult if not impossible. In extreme cases the Catholic
Church provided for the baptism of the child in the womb.
Yet the prayers of pious parents are not found to exercise
any appreciable influence. Mr. Galton analysed the lists of
the Record and the Times of a particulai period, and the pro
*
portion of still-births to the total number of deaths was dis-
�The Folly of Prayer.
13
covered to be exactly the same in both. A more conclusive
test than this could scarcely be devised.
Our nobility are another class especially prayed for. The
prescription for their case may be found in the Church
Liturgy. In a worldly sense they are undoubtedly very
prosperous ; they live on the fat of the land, and enjoy all
kinds of privileges. But these are not the advantages we
ask God to bestow upon them; we pray “ that the nobility
may be endued with grace, wisdom and understanding.”
And what is the result? The history of our glorious
aristocracy shows them to have always been singularly
devoid of “grace,” in the religious sense of the word; and
they have manifested a similar plentiful lack of “ wisdom
and understanding.” Even in politics, despite their excep
tional training and opportunities, they have been beaten by
unprayed-for commoners. Cromwell, Chatham, Pitt, Fox,
Burke, Canning, all arose outside the sacred precincts of
nobility. Gladstone is the son of a Liverpool merchant,
and Earl Beaconsfield was the son of a literary Jew. In science,
philosophy, literature and art, how few aristocrats have dis
tinguished themselves 1 Further, as Mr. Galton points out,
“wisdom and understanding ” are incompatible with insanity.
Yet our nobility are not exempted from that frightful scourge.
On the contrary, owing to their intermarriages, and the lack
of those wholesome restraints felt in humbler walks of life,
they are peculiarly liable to it. Clearly the aristocracy have
not been benefited by our prayers.
Let us now turn to another aspect of the question. How
is it that insurance companies make no allowance for prayers ?
When a man wishes to insure his life, confidential questions
are asked about his antecedents and his present conditions,
but the question, “ Does he habitually pray ?” is never
ventured. Yet, if prayer conduces to health and longevity,
this question is of great importance; nay, of the very
greatest; for what are hereditary tendencies to disease, or
the physical effects of previous modes of living, to a man
under the especial protection of God ? Insurance offices, how
ever, eliminate prayer from their calculations.
They do
not recognise it as a sanitary influence, and this fact proves
that there is no efficacy in prayer or that its efficacy is so
slight as to be altogether inappreciable.
Suppose the owner of two ships, similarly built and rigged,
�14
The Folly of Prayer.
and bound for the same port, wanted to insure them for the
voyage ; and suppose the one ship had a pious captain and
crew taken red-hot from a Methodist prayer-meeting, while
the captain and crew of the other ship, although excellent
seamen, never entered a place of worship, never bent their
knees in prayer, and never spoke of God except to take his
name in vain. Would any difference be made in the rate of
insurance ? Assuredly not. And if the owner, being a
soft-headed sincere Christian, should say to the agent: “ But,
my dear sir, the ship with the pious captain and crew, who
will certainly pray for their safety every day, runs much
less risk than the other, for the Lord has promised that he
will answer prayer, that he will watch over those who trust
him, and that whatsoever they ask, believing, that they shall
receive,” what would the answer be ? Probably this : “My
dear sir, as a Christian I admit the truth of what you say,
but I can’t mix up religion with my business. That sort of
thing is all very well in church on Sunday, you know, but it
doesn’t do any other day of the week down in the City.”
The decline and final extinction of belief in ordeals and
duels is an episode in the history of prayer. Both these
superstitious processes were appeals to God to decide what
was indeterminable by human logic. In the ordeal of jealousy,
so revoltingly set forth in the fifth chapter of Numbers,
the same curious concoction was given to all suspected wives,
and the difference in the effect produced was attributable
solely to the interposition of God. The same idea prevailed
in other forms during the chaotic Middle Ages, notably in
connection with the witch mania. Some idea of the critical
ability which accompanied it may be gathered from the fact
that “ witches” were often tied at the hands and feet,
and thrown into the nearest pond or river: if they swam
they were guilty, and at once burnt or hung, and if they
sank they were innocent, but of course they were drowned!
The duel was explicitly sanctioned and sometimes com
manded by the ecclesiastical and secular authorities, and it
■was devoutly believed that God would give the victory to
the just and overthrow the wrong. This belief has died out,
but a reflex of it exi-ts in the fond idea, not yet wholly
discarded, that the God of battles fights on the side of his
favorites. Only the simpletons think thus, and only the
charlatans of clericalism abet them. All the praying in the
�15
The Folly of Prayer.
world is powerless against superior tactics, more scientific
arms, greater numbers, and better discipline. Victory, as
Napoleon remarked, is on the side of the heaviest battalions ;
and prayer, as a counteractant to such advantages, is just as
efficacious as the celebrated pill to cure earthquakes.
Driven from all tangible strongholds by inevitable logic,
the believers in prayer take final refuge in their cloudcitadal of faith. They maintain that there is a spiritual if not
a material efficacy in prayer, that communion with God exalts
and purifies their inner nature, and thus indirectly influences
the course of events. “Certainty,” says a man of magnificent
genius, though not a Materialist, “it does alter him who
prays, and alters him often supremely, changing despair into
hope, confusion into steady light, timidity into confidence,
cowardice into courage, hatred into love, and the genius
of compromise into the spirit of martyrdom. * Far be it.
from me to deny this. It is attested by the life and death of
many a patient saint and martyred hero. But the God
communed with has been aftei’ all not a person, but a lofty
ideal, varying in each according to the greatness and
purity of his nature. A similar communion, in essence
the very same, is possible to the Humanitarian, who feels
himself descended from the endless past, bound to the
living and working present, and in a measure the paren'i
of an endless future. His ideal of an ever-striving and ever
conquering Humanity, emerging generation after generatiointo loftier levels, and leaving at its feet the lusts and follie
of its youth, serves him instead of a personal God; and i
moments snatched from the hot strife of the world he ca.
commune with it, either through its great poets and prophe"
or solely through the vision of his own higher self, which
essential humanity within him, and thus find serenity r
the ennoblement of resolve. This communion, into wh i
religions prayer may ultimately merge, will survive, beca X
while inspiring it does not outrage intellect and fact. Tlie
laws of nature will not be suspended to suit our needs for—
“ Nature with, equal mind
Sees all her sons at play;
Sees man control the wind,
The wind sweep man away!
Allows the proudly riding and the foundered bark.” f
(
* Dr. Garth Wilkinson: “ Human Science and Divine Revelation,” p. 380.
t Matthew Arnold: “ Empedocles on Etna.”
J
-
qq
�16
The Folly of Prayer.
But “the music born of love,” as another poet tells us, will
“ ease the world’s immortal pain.” Finding no help outside
ourselves, seeing no Providence to succor and comfort the
afflicted, no hand to lift up the down-trodden and establish
the weak, to wipe the tear from sorrowing eyes and convey
balm to wounded hearts; knowing that except we listen the
wail of human anguish is unheard, and that unless we give
it no aid can come ; we shall feel more imperative upon us
the duties and holy charities of life. If the world’s misery
cannot be assuaged by fatherly love from heaven, all the more
need is there for brotherly lo^e on earth.
A P .P E N I) I X.
The following table of longevities was prepared by Mr.
Galton from a Memoir by Dr. Guy in the Journal of the Sta
tistical Society (Vol. xxii., p. 355) :—
Mean Age attained by Males of various classes who had
survived their 30th year, from 1758 to 1843. Deaths
by Accident or Violence are excluded,
Average. Eminent
*
Men.
Members of Royal Houses
97 in number
Clergy...................................... 945
Lawyers
294
99
Medical Profession
244
English aristocracy
1,179
Gentry ...
1,632
"rude and Commerce ...
513
fficers in tho Royal Navy ... 366
higlish Literature and Scionco 395
99
\ fficers of the Army ...
569
99
A me Arts
239
99
64-04
69-49
6814
67-31
67-31
70-22
68-74
68-40
67 55
67-07
65-96
66-42
66-51
67-07
65-22
64-74
* The eminont mon are those whoso lives are recorded in Chambers’s
Biography, with some additions from the Annual Register.
Printed and Published by Rainsey and Foote at 2S Stonecutter Stree', E.C
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The folly of prayer
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: iii, [4]-16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. New introduction by the author, signed November 1 1884. First published 1880 under title 'The futility of prayer'. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N238
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religious practice
Prayer
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The folly of prayer), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Prayer