THE ARENA.

THE SELF-CONSISTENT THEORY OF INSPIRATION.

IT has been objected that the inspiration of certain of the Old Testament authors is invalidated by their corrupt conceptions of God. The prevailing idea of Deity among the ancient nations in the time of the founding of Israel, and its era of national existence, as we find in a study of inscriptions brought to light by the archæologist, was of a Being of great power and wisdom, but jealous and vindictive in disposition and given to inciting deeds of rapine and slaughter. While there were many gods among them, they were all of a lustful and murderous spirit.

The Hebrews are said to have been tinctured with this same notion. Some of their wars are described as displays of “providence." Many striking illustrations of the prevalence of this idea of the character of God among the Hebrews are cited in the Old Testament. Commands to utterly destroy the Canaanites and their kindred peoples were attributed to God. Wars upon neighboring peoples, in which old and young men, women, and even children were ruthlessly slain, are all attributed to God as inciting them, and by his "providential" interference giving Israel victory.

It is said an illustration of the vindictiveness and partiality of the Hebrew Jehovah is found in the summary destruction of Uzzah, who thoughtlessly extended his hand to steady the ark of God when the beasts stumbled which were hauling it. God in wrath smote Uzzah at once-without an opportunity for explanation or amends. The people who witnessed it were amazed and displeased at this injustice of their God. This poor man, it is contended, did no earthly wrong to anyone by his act of solicitude for the safety of the sacred ark. It was only an affront to the "majesty" of Jehovah. In contrast with all this, it is related King David and his followers at one time ate of the holy showbread, which it was unlawful for them to eat; and also that the priests profaned the temple and yet were held guiltless. Then again, in illustration of the partiality attributed to Jehovah, was his treatment of David. He robbed Uriah of his wife, committed adultery with her, broke up a happy home, and then murdered the unsuspecting husband, and thus became worthy of death by stoning according to the law of God-did God smite him with swift vengeance? Not at all. It was a king who sinned in this instance. But it was a series of crimes which wrought havoc in Israel and put law to an open shame; nevertheless a few tears, a little fasting, a threat of the sword upon his posterity, and the death of the illegitimate child condoned the king's offenses-and he was even allowed to keep the wife of Uriah! Another example of capriciousness attributed to God by the Old

Testament writer is cited in the instance of David numbering Israel. God, it is said, was incensed, and for this trifling matter, which injured no one, and in no conceivable way impugned the character of God, did Jehovah punish Israel-not the offending David! The sacred writer says God slew seventy thousand persons as a penalty -a penalty for a crime they did not commit! What would we say to-day if God should destroy seventy thousand of our citizens for taking the census, or even for an actual sin committed by our chief magistrate? Such an act as this on the part of God, we are told, is not in keeping with the New Testament conception of the divine character, and is utterly repugnant to common sense.

In discussing this objection, that the inspiration of the Old Testa.ment authors is invalidated by their corrupt conceptions of God, it will be noted the cases cited are not cited to prove God has been vindictive or unjust, but as showing the false ideas prevailing in ancient times even among the Hebrews, and which have tinctured their sacred writings. It is contended these false notions concerning God prove the writers were not divinely inspired.

How, therefore, shall we deal with this objection? We may deal with it in either of two ways. We may declare in the old-time method, as the writer did in "Inspiration Not Invalidated by Biblical Criticism," in the November-December, 1901, Review, that all contained in the Scripture has been placed there just as we find it by inspiration; and that Scripture is inerrant, and needs only to be better understood to clear it of difficulties. We may be able, possibly, to show the sacred authors have not really attributed these evils to God, but have only apparently done so. We may, perhaps, be able to prove the whole difficulty due to the omission of certain facts and explanations, or to our misapprehension of the narrative. On the other hand, we may admit, upon the face of the record as it has come down to us, the Old Testament authors have actually attributed vindictiveness and injustice to Jehovah. We may admit the conceptions of God entertained by those Old Testament authors are widely at variance with the New Testament conceptions of God. What then? Are we now compelled to deny inspiration in the Old Testament? By no means. We must simply correct our theory of inspiration. We must bring it into accord with the facts. If the writers of the Old Testament have really attributed evil to the character of God it certainly is no disparagement of the fact of inspiration to admit it. The admission will be fatal only to the theory which supposes all the sacred authors have written was divinely inspired. "Every Scripture inspired of God is profitable," etc. All in the Scripture may not have been inspired. All was not inspired. Even Paul did not claim inspiration for all in his epistles, he even disclaimed it for some portions. Inspiration may, therefore, and must be denied all portions of the Old Testamentif there be any-which impugn God's character.

The correct theory of inspiration will be formulated in keeping

with New Testament ideals. We may lay down as a first principle that wherever the character of God is impugned in the Old Testament, or falls short of the excellence of the Divine Being revealed in Jesus Christ in the New, we must interpret the Jehovah of the Old Testament in the light of the Father in the New; and, as a second principle, that God inspired only those laws, and conceptions of duty, and moral and religious lessons, those prophetic utterances, and illustrations of divine character, which are in accord with the ethical and religious standards established by Jesus Christ. For everything that falls below those standards inspiration may not be claimed. We may say then that those portions which fall below the New Testament standards represent the best knowledge and belief of the times in which they were written.

In this way objection to biblical inspiration in the Old Testament will be removed; the multitude of discrepancies in unessential matters so often cited will be thrown entirely out of the discussion, as inspiration is claimed only in the realm of morals and religion; every portion of the Scripture will be accorded its true value; the miraculous element in the word of God will not be disturbed; no essential fact or principle in the plan of salvation will be affected; and we shall have a self-consistent theory of biblical inspiration. Roseburg, Ore. GEORGE H. BENNETT.

"OUR CHURCH AND THE CHILDREN."

UNDER this caption Mr. Frank Lenig, of Fort Scott, Kan., furnishes the department of the "Arena" in the July-August number of the Methodist Review for the current year the clearest statement of the theory that children are "saved and kept saved" by proper religious instruction in accordance with the provision of the Discipline of our Church that we remember to have seen. And yet it fails to convince us. It seems to us that the reasoning in advocacy of this theory of child salvation is always fallacious, and certainly so in this instance. We will endeavor to point out the fallacies and how they come to be employed in Mr. Lenig's argument.

When he declares that "Our theory is all right, but our practice is almost entirely wrong," he very justly assumes that there is a discrepancy between our prescribed duty (see Discipline, ¶ 46) and our practice in relation to the religious training of our children; for, whatever the correct theory of the Methodist Church may be on that subject, we surely fail to carry it out to any good degree of regularity and faithfulness. So far we agree with him.

It is when he attempts to explain "our theory" of child salvation that he goes astray, and we are compelled to part company with him. Up to a certain point he states the case correctly, and then, by an oversight of an important fact, or failure to distinguish between certain facts, he switches off onto an erroneous line of reasoning, and by his chosen method reaches a conclusion that does not, and cannot be made to, harmonize with actual human experience. Hear

him: "According to our theory the child is born saved, and by virtue of the unconditional benefits of the atonement it remains saved for a time. Within that time it may accept Christ by faith, and so remain saved all the time." (Italics are ours.) His chief fallacy lies in the last expression in italics, and his "for a time" is his pitfall. Unfortunately for his argument, it is too indefinite a period, while his "within that time" is too liberally applied. His whole theory snags on the question as to when that period terminates. Evidently, according to Mr. Lenig and all those who hold his views, it terminates at some point within that period during which the children are in organized classes met weekly by their leaders, instructed on baptism and in the truths of religion, urged to give attendance to the appointed means of grace, advised and encouraged to an immediate consecration of their hearts and lives to God, and the state of their religious experience is inquired into. "Within that time," says Mr. Lenig, the child "may accept Christ by faith," meaning, presumably, not the probability but the possibility that it will do so, and thus quotes the Discipline in support of his argument: "Whenever these children shall understand the obligations of religion, and shall give evidence of piety," "they may be admitted into full membership in the Church," this period of religious instruction being their probation-"the only probation required of them."

We have no fault to find with making this period answer to the six months' probation, if the General Conference so authorizes, although the two periods are not identical, nor likely to be possible in the majority of cases of very young and backward children. What we object to in the above reasoning is the indefiniteness of Mr. Lenig's "for a time," and his confounding the "Whenever it shall understand" with the instant of the child's accountability or awakening moral consciousness. Let it be remembered that the Discipline does not require the beginning of this systematic religious instruction in classes until the children have reached the age of ten years, except in those cases where it is deemed advisable to admit them "at an earlier age" (¶ 46). Is it after reaching this age and while undergoing instruction, or from the moment of awakened conscious moral obligation, which must have occurred in most children before the age of ten, that the period ends when "for a time" the child is saved? Certainly it is not "saved and kept saved" after reaching the last-named stage. Having reached and immediately passed that important point in its career without accepting Christ by faith, it must needs realize the common necessity of all sinners of repenting toward God and so doing; for, having allowed it to pass unimproved but a day or even an hour, it has sinned by its neglect. Should it die prior to acquiring the knowledge of this necessity it would undoubtedly be saved, because of the "unconditional benefits of the atonement."

Dr. Isaac Watts expresses a truth in reference to human nature that cannot be argued away and which is accepted by Methodists

as a truism, being found in our Church hymnal (No. 305) in these lines:

"Lord, we are vile, conceived in sin,

And born unholy and unclean;

Sprung from the man whose guilty fall
Corrupts his race, and taints us all.

"Soon as we draw our infant breath
The seeds of sin grow up for death;
The law demands a perfect heart,
But we're defiled in every part."

Here again Mr. Lenig and those who agree with him err, in fail- * ing to note the possible consonance between the facts of irresponsible infants being in a saved state and their inherited depravity. The morally unconscious child is both depraved by nature and in a saved state at one and the same time. When it awakes to moral accountability it is to recognize that it has a nature tainted with original sin and is no longer in a saved state, except it meet the New Testament conditions of salvation to repent and believe.

Let us by all means be more faithful in obeying the instructions of the Discipline by giving greater attention to the religious training of the baptized children; but do not let us teach them that, being saved under one merciful provision of the atonement, they are kept saved without repentance, when they have passed beyond that provision to another, which requires a different attitude toward God for their salvation. W. A. CARVER.

A CORRECTION.

I AM indebted to the kindness of the Rev. W. H. Meredith, Southbridge, Mass., an expert in Wesleyana, for a correction of a slip which I unfortunately made in my rapid sketch of Wesley's activity as a man of letters in your issue of July. It is in reference to the burning of Wesley's manuscripts, which I attributed to Henry Moore, one of his executors. Brother Meredith says: "John Pawson, resident preacher at City Road, is the man who burned Wesley's annotated Shakespeare, and a lot of other manuscripts, some shorthand ones, which his narrow mind decided were not 'for the glory of God.' Classical and literary manuscripts were his detestation. Moore was living at Bath at the time, and learning of it angrily wrote him and forbade further destruction of manuscripts, which he had no right even to touch. Pawson promised to destroy no more, and pleaded that many manuscripts were in shorthand and others so contracted in spelling as to be of no use. Moore went up to London and secured the residue." Mr. Meredith then speaks of his own indignation at Pawson's misguided zeal, "when I have looked at my own collection, and at your really wonderful collection at Drew." He then asks who wrote John Wesley the Methodist; but that is a riddle I must leave to the editor. Madison, N. J.

J. ALFRED FAULKNER.