for if ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask Him ?" "Your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" ?[302] And when the believer is enabled in any measure to comply with the injunctions of Scripture,--"Cast thy burden on the Lord, and He will sustain it," "Commit thy way unto Him, and He will bring it to pass," "Be careful for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God, and the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus,"-- does he not know experimentally that it is faith in a living, personal God,--the God of providence, and the Hearer of prayer, and not the desolate doctrine of Nature,--"the _God of the iron foot_, stern as fate, absolute as tyranny, and merciless as death,"-- that can sustain him under every trial, and nerve him with fresh vigor for the "battle of life"?
Mr.Holyoake refers to his own experience, and appeals to the experience of his fellow-men, in confirmation of his _negative_ conclusion in regard to a special Providence and the efficacy of Prayer.

But what weight is due to his testimony in such a case?
Is it sufficient to countervail the experience of all in every age--"the great cloud of witnesses"-- who have unanimously declared that "the Lord hath not forsaken them that seek Him," and that "He hath not said to the seed of Jacob, Seek ye my face in vain"?
Which is entitled to the greater weight, the testimony of Mr.Holyoake, or that of the Psalmist, "I waited patiently for the Lord, and He inclined unto me, and heard my cry;" or that of the prophet, "I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and He heard me: out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice: When my soul fainted within me I remembered the Lord, and my prayer came in unto Thee into thine holy temple;" or that of the apostle, "For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me; and He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness" ?[303] A cry for help may not be "the prayer of faith," but the utterance of an unsubdued and rebellious will, and can afford no test, therefore, of the truth of the doctrine of Scripture.
But "Science," says Mr.Holyoake, "is the providence of life, and spiritual dependence may be attended with material destruction." He would substitute, therefore, the Science of man for the Providence of God, and secular _diligence_ for spiritual _dependence_.

But is there no room for both?
Are they necessarily incompatible or mutually exclusive?
Why should the Science of man be opposed to the Providence of God, or secular industry to religious faith?
All Christians combine the two; why should Mr.Holyoake seek to divorce them?
What is Science?
It is "the well-devised method of using Nature; it is in this that Science is the providence of man.

It is not pretended that Science is a perfect dependence; on the contrary, it is admitted to be narrow and but partially developed; but it is the only special dependence that man has."[304] And is the _wise use of Nature_ inconsistent with Religion?
is it the exclusive monopoly of Atheism?
Or is spiritual dependence necessarily incompatible with industrial pursuits?
Who have been the most scientific and the most industrious members of the community, the small band of Atheists, or the great body of Christians?
To the latter belong all the advantages which Science, or the wise use of Nature, can secure, while they have _besides_ a Providence, distinct from Nature and superior to it, whose wakeful eye never slumbers, and whose ear is ever open to their cry.
5.