Prayer, unlimited in its possibilities, stands midway between heaven and earth; with one

hand it reaches up to hea ven, with the other down to earth; in it, faith prepares to

receive, what charity is ready to dispense. He who so prays believes in God and loves

man; such prayer is not selfish, self-seeking, self -conscious; least of all, is it compatible

with mindfulness of wrongs, or an unforgiving spirit. This, then, is the second condition

of prayer, and not only of such all-prevailing prayer, but even of personal acceptance in

prayer. We can, therefore, have no doubt that St. Mark correctly reports in this

connection this as the condition which the Lord attaches to acceptance, that we

previously put away all uncharitableness.17 18 We remember, that the promise had a

special application to the Apostles and early disciples; we also remember, how difficult

to them was the thought of full forgiveness of offenders and persecutors;19 and again,

how great the temptation to avenge wrongs and to wield miraculous power in the

vindication of their authority.  20 In these circumstances Peter and his fellow-disciples,

when assured of the unlimited power of the prayer of faith, required all the more to be

both reminded and warned of this as its second moral condition: the need of hearty

forgiveness, if they had aught against any.

From this digression we return to the events of that second day in Passion-week (the

Monday), which began with the symbolic judgment on the leafy, barren fig-tree. The

same symbolism of judgment was to be immediately set forth still more clearly, and that

in the Temple itself. On the previous afternoon, when Christ had come to it, the services

were probably over, and the Sanctuary comparatively empty of worshippers and of

those who there carried on their traffic. When treating of the first cleansing of the

Temple, at the beginning of Christ's Ministry, sufficient has been said to explain the

character and mode of that nefarious traffic, the profits of which went to the leaders of

the priesthood, as also how popular indignation was roused alike against this trade and

the traders. We need not here recall the words of Christ; Jewish authorities sufficiently

describe, in even stronger terms, this transformation of 'the House of Prayer' into 'a den

of robbers.'21 If, when beginning to do the 'business' of His Father, and for the first time

publicly presenting Himself with Messianic claim, it was fitting He should take such

authority, and first 'cleanse the Temple' of the nefarious intruders who, under the guise

of being God's chief priests, made His House one of traffic, much more was this

appropriate now, at the close of His Work, when, as King, He had entered His City, and

publicly claimed authority. At the first it had been for teaching and warning, now it was in

symbolic judgment; what and as He then began, that and so He now finished.

Accordingly, as we compare the words, and even some of the acts, of the first

'cleansing' with those accompanying and explaining the second, we find the latter, we

shall not say, much more severe, but bearing a different character - that of final judicial

sentence.22