THE BOOK COMMITTEE.

The Book Committee of the Methodist Episcopal Church is an extraordinary body, whether its personal composition, its legislative function, or the actual business it annually transacts be considered. Within certain limits, and concerning the publishing and some other interests of the Church, it has all the authority of the General Conference, and acts in its stead, with all the freedom and wisdom of the larger body that created it. It supervises the publication of thirteen or more periodicals, inspecting their editorial management, with an inventory of their resources, cost, surplus or deficit, and has the power in certain emergencies to arraign and depose, as well as approve and justify, those in editorial positions. It annually fixes the salaries of bishops, agents, editors, and a majority of General Conference officers. It examines the business of the Book Concerns, gives direction concerning the publication of books, and may change the methods of business, even to details, of our great publishing-houses. The twelve ministers and eight laymen who constitute the committee were chosen by the General Conference for their integrity of character, supposed business sagacity, unimpeachable loyalty to Methodism, and their general reputation as Christian men, who would honor the position and faithfully perform the duties involved in it.

In their annual meeting in February the Committee performed a vast amount of business, some of it in routine order, but much of it difficult and delicate, and requiring ripened judgment and a studied purpose successfully to adjust all matters to their proper conclusions. It is not possible to say that one was more efficient than another in the settlement of some of these problems, for all were devoted to the common end, and business and religion beautifully and wholesomely interacted in their deliberations and results. When the agents reported the business of the year, the magnitude of our Book Concerns became evident; when the editors reported their papers, the periodical system of Methodism had new significance, and its power within its sphere was seen to be incalculable; when the Committee proceeded to the election of an agent to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of John M. Phillips they became conscious of a great responsibility, and acted with appropriate care and wisdom; and when the bishops present proceeded to exercise their prerogative, either in concurring or refusing to concur in the election, the power of the episcopacy was felt to be great and decisive. Thus the Committee stands in the Church as a body clothed with authority, possessed of dignity, and capable by its relation to great affairs of advancing them or doing mischief beyond repair.

The selection of the Rev. Homer Eaton, D.D., of the Troy Conference, as the associate agent of Dr. Sandford Hunt at New York gives great and deserved satisfaction. He is not a stranger to the duties of the office, having been a member of the Book Committee for eight years, and for one term its chairman; nor is he without special qualifications for the

position, such as early commended him to the thought of the Committee. Under the management of the new firm it is believed the increasing prosperity of the Book Concern is assured.

Without detailing the work of the Committee, but speaking in general terms, we cannot resist the impression that the Methodist system of business is, on the whole, superior to any other denominational system of business in the country. In some respects it may not equal the systems of individual houses that have the world for a constituency, so that it cannot hope to compete with them; but within its own sphere it is superior and most efficient. As proof, we have only to point to the fact that the subscription lists of our Church papers in most cases exceed the lists of other denominational papers in their territory; and as for the Review, in this particular it is at the head of all denominational review literature in the United States. Other denominations have systems of their own, or employ secular methods, but we leave them behind by a system peculiar to Methodism, and which, thoroughly worked, will enable us to accomplish all that belongs to any one denomination to do.

The issue of the subject is, therefore, the necessity of co-operation with the system all along the line, from the most obscure and helpless member to the most prominent and authoritative servant in our broad and expanding Methodism. The charm of loyalty and responsibility must hold together the vast multitudes of the Church, and inspire to activity and benevolence in the patronage of our books and papers, and the furtherance by every possible means of the evangelization of the country and the world. Allowing that the mission of one Church is the mission of all, still it is not unfraternal in any denomination to claim that it may have a function in the system of evangelization not performed by any other, and that its methods, whether peculiar or common, are better adapted to its special work than the methods of other organizations. In this view of the case it is incumbent upon Methodists to conform to their methods if they would fulfill the mission that providentially has been assigned to them, as an organized branch of the Church of Christ. Nonconformity to the methods of Methodism is treason to the mission of Methodist, inasmuch as the latter must fail without the former. We may, therefore, rightly insist upon the use of all our periodical and other literature in the homes and churches of the people called Methodists. While outside elements are antagonizing, not only the Christian faith, but also every form of Church organization and order, there should be the utmost harmony within the circle of believers if the largest success shall be secured. The spirit of independence, so rife in the world, and not an unmixed evil in the Church, should be so guarded and regulated as to contribute to its prosperity rather than assist in its downfall. Methodism united is a conquering force; divided, it will destroy itself and cause Christendom to mourn.

THE ARENA.

THE FIRST WORD OF GENESIS.

THE criticism of Dr. Hawley on the first word in Genesis, in the January number of the Review, I cannot accept as correct. has no article expressed or implied. The full form with the article would be, ; or with the article consonant (7) suppressed, . The

לְהָרֵאשִׁית for לָרֵאשִׁית,44 ,word occurs in the Hebrew Bible, Neh. xii

the vowel of the article being retained while the consonant is suppressed. This is the only instance where the word is used with the article prefixed. to be rendered "the first fruit (or fruits)."

The use of the article in the Hebrew is in most cases like it is in English. If a thing in Hebrew is not already known, it generally, not to say always, lacks the article; thus: God said, "Let there be light." Here in Hebrew we have in, light, without the article, as something at the time unknown or not mentioned before. But after the light is created it is called is, the light, with the article (Gen. i, 4). So when God says, "Let there be a firmament," p is used without the article; but after it is formed it is called yp, the firmament (verse 7).

In Gen. i, 1, as no beginning has been mentioned, the noun is, beginning, properly has no article. Hence, "In beginning" is the proper rendering, just as it is given in the LXX., 'Ev ȧpx", "In beginning." Carlisle, Pa. HENRY M. HARMAN.

It does not seem to me that Dr. Hawley has established his position; and as some of his arguments are based on opinions which are rendered doubtful by recent investigations, and others are due to a mistake, a reply may be justified.

1.

does not mean "ahead, the first, the beginning;" all these are derived meanings (v. Ges., Hebr. u. Arum. Handwörterbuch, 10 Auf., Leipzig, 1886, 8. v.).

2. The LXX. cannot be quoted on this passage, for tradition names this as one of the thirteen places changed for Ptolemy. (Compare Geiger, Urschrift, pp. 344, 439, 444.)

66

3. "... the Hebrew article, commonly written" (Hawley). This statement Dr. Hawley owes to Moses Stuart (Grammar, 6th ed., Andover, 1838, § 162); but he does Professor Stuart injustice in mot taking also the rest of the sentence, which concluded thus: "with a Daghesh forte after it." This may sound pedantic, but it is none the less important.

Dr. Hawley has overlooked the fact that the first half of this statement about the article is only an hypothesis, and that, too, one that is abandoned by many of the best scholars of the present day.

Stade (Lehrbuch der Heb. Grammatik., Leipzig, 1879, § 172, a. 2) repudiates it, while Müller (Heb. Schul-grammatik., Halle, 1878, § 113, a) says

that the explanation of the doubling of the next consonant as an assimilation of is "besonders bei letzterem streitig." Green, also (Heb. Gram., new ed., New York, 1889, § 230, 1, a), does not hold this opinion. (See further König, Lehrgebäude der Heb. Sprache, Leipzig, 1881, § 16, Anm.) 4. "And the reason the article is omitted in n is, it suffers syncope after, and gives up its vowel to the particle. The syncope of the article is common (Stuart's Grammar, sec. 152, note, and sec. 108, b)" (Hawley). The article does not suffer "" syncope," and it does not " give up its vowel to the particle." The very passages quoted by Dr. Hawley from his favorite grammar show that if syncope had taken place ♫ would have become (v. Ges. Heb. Grimmatik., 24 Auf., Leipzig; 1885, § 35, 2 with Anm. 2, and Green, § 2:0, 3, 5).

The editor's kindness may perhaps allow me to say that I should translate the verse (partially following Rashi and Ibn Ezra): "At first, when God created the heaven and the earth, . . . then God said, Let there be light." This does not necessitate the change of 3 to 7 (cf. Hosea i, 2; Deut. iv, 15); nor is the objection to so long a period well taken when ii, 4, 8qq., is compared.

(See, further, Dillmann, Die Genesis, 5 Auf., Leipzig, 1886, and compare Delitzsch, Neuer Commetar über die Genesis, Leipzig, 1887.) Haverford College, Pa.

ROBERT W. ROGERS.

[These unsolicited confirmations of our position, or translation, are sufficient to settle the question. If any are still in doubt we most respectfully refer them to such additional authorities as President Buttz, of Drew Theological Seminary; Professor Wm. R. Harper, editor of Hebraica and The Old Testament Student, Yale College; and Professor W. W. Davies, of the Ohio Wesleyan University. We may venture to state that Stuart's Grammar, so freely used by Dr. Hawley, is in the background among scholars as an authority. With these references the controversy is closed. -EDITOR.]

THE DOCTRINE OF MERIT.

The cast-iron system of theology which originated with Augustine is yielding to the "sweetness and light" of the nineteenth century. Arminius is becoming taller than Calvin. Whedon on the Will "" answers "Edwards on the Will." But beyond all reasoning, the common consciousness accepts the blunt dictum of the great Samuel Johnson, "We know the will is free, and there's an end of it."

Does not a clear-cut and logical Arminianism demand the acknowledgment of merit as well as demerit in moral actions? Have we not too carelessly accepted the saying, as though it were an axiom, "There can be no merit in a creature?" Does not condemnation imply commendation? Thou wicked and slothful servant" stands contrasted with "Well done." "Depart, ye cursed" is set against "Come, ye blessed." "According to his works" is the scriptural standard of judgment. Worthlessness with no

contrasting worthiness savors of Calvinism. They who are "called to be saints" cannot at the same time be miserable sinners. If sinners deserve to die, saints deserve to live, and may claim “a right to the tree of life;" for, though they are "unprofitable servants," yet "he is faithful and just to forgive."

May not one's virtues balance his vices and prevent positive punishment? No doubt there are degrees of punishment-"few stripes" and "many stripes; " and one doom will be "more tolerable" than another; yet even a balanced account may warrant the loss of heaven.

Does merit preclude atonement? By no means; for the most virtuous and worthy life may fail to reach its full recognition on account of past sins, which need atonement. Does grace then save? Yes, grace gives power to act, and meets human endeavor with heavenly help. But even the paralytic was commanded to "stretch forth" his hand. Jesus said to the Jews, "Ye will not come to me;" if either total depravity or inexorable necessity had kept them from coming to him, could he have blamed them?

Are not works "only a condition?" Yes, just as faith is only a condition; for in one sense neither faith nor works are meritorious; yet both affect the soul's salvation, and merit recognition and divine approval in the same degree that wrong-doing demands condemnation. Practically there is as much reward as retribution in the divine government; why then not admit the logical sequences of Arminian belief, and reject all remnants of Calvinism? T. M. GRIFFITH.

Conshohocken, Pa.

ORGANIZED CHARITIES.

Promiscuous alms-giving makes the tramp's vocation possible. Concede it to be difficult, if not impossible, so to organize as to avoid errors in giving, nevertheless, reform at this point demands attention. Giving to persons who are willfully idle, or who use alms to purchase intoxicants, or who beg for gain, or to tramps, are prolific sources of evil. Not to assist the worthy indigent would be wrong, and would result in great suffering to many who are not to blame because of their misfortunes. But any attempt to assist the worthy indigent, and avoid frauds and tramps by promiscuous giving, must prove a failure. To feel the pulse of poverty and diagnose the case requires knowledge and wide experience, far more than to feel the pulse of one whose body is sick and to give a proper diagnosis of the disease. In the latter case the physician has natural laws by which to determine the disease. In the former, every thing hinders in reaching accurate conclusions. Deceptions, tricks, fraud, false pretenses are the means practiced by beggars who solicit alms from door to door.

Where the indigent are assisted through proper organizations, the aims of which are not simply to relieve from hunger and cold, but also for the elevation of the moral and physical condition of the indigent, positive and lasting good may be accomplished. Experience has demonstrated,