kear and grant all the Prayers of his Servants, if they be put up to him as they ought to be; and a great many Instances we find in thefe Scriptures wherein God hath remarkably made thefe Promifes good.

Fourthly and Laftly, God hath, in these Scriptures, laid fo great a Strefs upon this Duty of Prayer, and declared it to be fo neceffary in order to the obtaining the good Things we ftand in need of, that he hath told us, without our Prayers we shall not have them; fo that furely all thefe Things confider'd, it is not in vain that we should ferve God, neither is it without Profit that we should pray unto him.

Well, but all this doth not fatisfy that fort of People which we have to deal with What do we talk to them of Experience and Revelations, fo long as the Thing it felf is against Reafon, fo long as in the Nature of the Thing it is abfurd to think that our Prayers fhould help us in any Diftrefs?

Now for the Proof of this, they argue four feveral Ways: Some argue from the Immutability of God's Nature, others from his effential Goodness, others from his eternal Decrees, and laftly, others from the Frame of the World, and the established Courfe of Nature. From all these Topicks they draw Arguments, and, they think, very ftrong ones, to prove that our Prayers fignify nothing

K 3

nothing as to any real Benefit we receive from them.

Well! let us, at this Time, examine these their Arguments one by one, and fee what Force there is in them for the inferring this Conclufion; I am confident you will be fatisfied that there is none at all, tho' yet I fhall give them all the Weight they are capable of.

The firft Argument, against the Needfulnefs or Efficacy of Prayer, is drawn from the Immutability of the Nature of God, and it runs thus: To fuppofe that our Prayers are at any Time effectual, or, which is all one, that God doth at any Time grant the Requests that are put up unto him, is to fuppofe that he doth upon our Prayers beftow fomething upon us which without our Prayers he would not have done; which is in effect to fay, that our Prayers can produce a Change, an Alteration in the Mind. of God; for before our Prayers he was not inclined or difpofed to give us fuch and fuch Bleffings, but after our Prayers he is; So that according to this Doctrine, God is fo far from being immutable by his Nature, that it is in the Power of the moft contemptible Man in the World to make him alter his Purpose, which is very impious to affirm, and directly contrary even to our own Scripture Propofitions, which declare, That with God there is no Variableness nor Shadow

of

And that the

of turning, James i. 17. Strength of Ifrael as he cannot lye, fo neither can be repent; for he is not a Man that he fhould repent, 1 Sam. xv. 29.

This is the Argument; but in truth if it be examined, it is a meer Fallacy. God's hearkning to, or being moved by the Prayers we put up to him, doth not in the leaft clash with his Attribute of Immutability. It is true when upon our Prayers God is pleased to give us thofe things we pray for, which without our Prayers he would not have done, it cannot be denied but that there is a Change fomewhere; but if the Matter be examined, it will be found to be in us, and not in God. God's Mind was always the fame towards us; that is, he refolved that if we humbly and heartily begged fuch or fuch things at his Hands, we should have them; but if not, we should go without them. When therefore upon our Prayers we obtain that Grace, or that Bleffing which we had not before, it is not He that is changed, but we. We, by performing the Conditions he required of us, do look with another Afpect to him, do entitle our felves to another kind of Dealing from him, than we could claim before. We have made our felves capable of receiving those Benefits, which before we

were not.

To put this yet into a clearer Light, if it be poffible. Suppofe a Father had a Son that had carried himself very unworthily and difobediently to him, whereupon he is fo difpleafed, that he cafts him off, and refolves never to receive him again, unless he comes and humbles himself, acknowledges his Fault, and begs Pardon: (which is the fame thing with the Prayer we are now fpeaking of) but if he will do thus, he will be reconciled to him. We will suppose now that the Son by Extremity of Want, or other Straits that he is reduced to, doth at laft become fenfible of his Folly, and that Senfe puts him upon returning to his Father, and clofing with thofe Conditions of Pardon he is pleafed to offer him, and accordingly with the Prodigal in the Gospel he comes home, and falling down before his Father he faith, Father, I have finned against Heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy Son: He confeffeth his Faults, and implores his Father's Forgiveness. Upon this, as it followeth in the Parable, the Father receiveth him, takes him home to him, cloaths him anew, grants all the Requests he puts up to him, and makes a Feaft for his Return. Here now is a moft visible Alteration. The Son that was before in a most deplorable Condition, as can be, is now put into happy Circumftances. The Father that had before abandoned him,

now

now receives him, and rejoiceth in him. But is this Alteration produced in the Father or in the Son? Not in the Father certainly, for he Acts punctually according to his firft Refolutions or Determinations, that he had fet down with him felf, which indeed were infinitely juft and reasonable. But the Alteration is in the Son, who by performing the Conditions which his Father required of him, hath rendred himself a different Object from what he was before; he was before an Object of his Father's Wrath and Difpleafure; he is now an Object of his Pity and Kindnefs: And accordingly as he felt before the Effects of the former, fo now he feels the Effects of the latter. But thefe different Effects do no more argue any Change or Inconftancy in the Father, than it doth imply a Change or Inconftancy in any Perfon; that he is differently affected towards Perfons that have contrary Qualities. The Application of this is fo eafie to the Cafe we are upon, that every body may make it.

And thus much of the firft Objection against Prayer drawn from God's Immutability. The Second is drawn from another Attribute, and that is God's infinite and ef fential Goodnefs; and thus it proceeds. If God in his Nature is the most perfect Love and Goodness, that is conceivable; then it is certain he manages the Affairs of the World