are firmly taken. We differ widely, and I doubt not permanently. My only wish was to bring before your view things that had been said hereabouts, so that if they at all should modify your views a unity might be obtained.

Your assignment of our relative positions in the interpretation of Scripture I cannot accept. You make me bind Scripture to external considerations, while you bind all to Scripture. I have no doubt we use the same methods. Pope reasons apart from and against Scripture as much as Watson does. I would like to see you interpret the first chapter of Genesis without seeking to adjust the language to the claims of science. And the implication that I attempt to "break the force" of Paul's aorist is, I think, very mistaken. I believe, in accordance with the parallel passages of his aorists, quoted by me, that I give his true and certain meaning. It is not so much a question of grammar as rhetoric. Paul, as I show in the parallel instances, takes his conceptual stand-point at the close of the whole process, and so in the true aoristic sense tells what took place in the process. I hope to show this more fully in my January Quarterly.

The quotation you give from Pope I will soon examine in the book. At present I do not understand it. I should suppose it to be written by an extreme Universalist. It seems to affirm that the whole race with all its sins is atoned for, and all men have to do is to "know" it. This was in Scotland called the Rowe heresy, the author of which taught that all men are saved, and conversion consists in finding it out.

If I understand you, however, you make the condemnation and salvation of Rom. v, 18, 19, ideally strike against each other in the air, and leave the human being untouched. If that is what Pope means by " realism," you are right in thinking I call it "childish." To say that God holds the innocent guilty and really punishes him for it is a realistic moral lie. To say that he does so idealistically is an idealistic lie. And as there can be no pardon where there is nothing to pardon, so both sides of the antithesis come to nothing.

To my doctrine that the Divine Mind holds an evil non-free agent displacent, but not responsible or justly punishable, you reply that it offends against intuitive reason, is a speculative thought. It is neither. It is just what you and I feel toward an evil but necessitated agent. We feel that he is bad, morally bad, but not responsibly or punishably so. And just so in truth and justice must "the whole weight of God" fall-just because it is right. Cheerfully I admit that Dr. Bledsoe holds otherwise, and say so in my book on the Will, page 389. Bledsoe's maxim was, There can be no created holiness or unholiness. My maxim is, There can be created holiness and unholiness, but there can be no created or necessitated good or evil desert. And that I show fully in two chapters, pages 375-396. Especially do I illustrate the case of Adam on pages 389, 390. And I then proceed to refute Edwards with my maxim, as cannot be done with Dr. Bledsoe's. My

maxim and doctrine on this point are the very spinal marrow of our Arminian argument against unconditional reprobation. It is assumed and constantly affirmed by Wesley and Fletcher, by Watson and Fisk, and I doubt not by Professor Tigert, only he has forgotten it just now. Specially notice my "automatic fiend" on page 383. Not long since I quoted in the Quarterly a similar passage from Fisk, and can do it again.

Finally, I am obliged to you and some otlier friends for stating your objections. I intend to take up that part of the subject in the form of a review (book-notice) of Burnet on the Ninth Article. On the resurrection, Pope deserts Scripture and takes to a false philosophy, and I am afraid that is just what you are doing, contrary to your own supposition.

Truly,

D. D. WHEDON.

Accordingly, in the January Quarterly (1884), "in the form of a review of Burnet," the editor fully stated his position. A single paragraph may be reproduced here:

That between the divine "love and acceptation" of justified man and the "wrath and damnation" of a freely sinning unholy being there is a "mean," namely, the divine unjudicial displacency toward an evil, unfree agent, we maintained in our last Quarterly. Two learned friends, the one in the North and the other in the South, have written us objections to the reality of this intermediate. As it happens, both these respected correspondents express a high valuation of our work on the Will, a work which, for some twenty years, has been recommended to be read in our Course of Study. Our two friends, nevertheless, seem totally unaware that whole chapters of that volume are expended in elucidating that intermediate. In our two chapters entitled "Distinction between Automatic Excellence and Moral Desert," and "Created Moral Desert Impossible," (pp. 375-396), we have discussed this subject with a fullness and, as we think, with a demonstrative conclusiveness which admits of no valid reply, and which ought to have expelled the fatalistic monster of hereditary guilt" from our theology. It was a full decade since we had read these two chapters; but we see nothing, save some little stiffnesses, occasionally, of expression, in which we could now improve them. To save the trouble of our readers in referring to the volume, and ourself from rewriting, we here quote a few passages, at the same time asking our friends who are disposed to differ from our view to fully read both chapters.

Later in November came the last letter of importance which I received from Dr. Whedon. With it I conclude the correrespondence.

New York, November 15, 1883. MY DEAR PROFESSOR: I put your article in Dr. Miley's hands, who I trust will correspond with you, and I hope you may so

mutually explain as to agree. Yet I will publish your article as you wish, so far as your argument is concerned, but prefer to omit the adulation upon Dr. Pope's imaginary ultra-scripturalism.* It is not likely that I shall publish a reply from Dr. M. in the Quarterly, nor will I directly reply to your article. But under guise of a book-notice of some work I shall in three or four pages attempt to show that absolute justice is not done when an innocent victim is executed for the really guilty. When one plumes himself as loftily exalting the divine personal righteousness in exacting such an execution he undoes his own work by being obliged to lower the ideal of pure justice, and so lower his exaltation of the divine attribute. Nothing is thereby gained. An absolute justice by compromise is all, and that is purely governmental. Please, therefore, return my sermon, as you know it is my only copy.

Fraternally and truly,

D. D. WHEDON.

And with this clear bugle-blast from the lips of a watchman who never gave an uncertain sound the correspondence closed. It will be seen that Dr. Whedon took occasion to condense in a few sentences his final exposition of many important points of doctrine of which he had been the life-long champion. As these letters, every way so characteristic and so intrinsically important, were written so near the close of his life, it seemed to me desirable and right that they should be given to the public. Accordingly I have taken this medium of doing so.

Jns. J Tigert.

ART. VII.-THE BODY SOWN-THE BODY RAISED. Or what body does St. Paul, in 1 Cor. xv, 42-54, affirm a sowing? What is the relation of the body sown to the body raised?

I. In the New Testament are three radically different words translated "body;" namely, xpws (Acts xix, 12), meaning the surface, body, skin, in the New Testament body; τõμa (Rev. xi, 8, 9, Matt. xxiv, 28, Mark vi, 9), translated body, carcass, corpse; and owμa, organism, organized body, including what is

*The copy was not sent me with the proof; so far as I could determine, however, Dr. Whedon omitted nothing. It will be seen that the article "The Methodist Doctrine of Atonement," printed in the Review for April, 1884, is unequivocal in its praise and indorsement of Pope. The goodness of the editorial heart overcame all scruples at the last moment.

17-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. V.

essential to the identity and growth of the body through all its changes. Out of the one hundred and forty-four times that oua is used in the New Testament it applies a few times only (1) to the body of John the Baptizer, recently dead; (2) to the uncorrupted body of Jesus; (3) more accurately to designate the essential body of the living; (4) to denote the Church of which Christ is the Head; and (5) the subtle organism of which St. Paul affirms a sowing and a resurrection to spirituality. The idea of organism is the essential one. For this reason he here uses this word rather than either of the others.

II. In further defining what body is sown, both the Authorized Version and the Revised say, "It is sown a natural body." There are four radically different words translated "natural:" 1) voirós, from pois, nature. The suffix Koç, has the force of al in English, like, similar; thus, ovoikoç, physical, natural. It is so used in Rom. i, 26, 27, 2 Peter ii, 12. 2) Γενεσίς (James i, 23, iii, 6, Matt. i, 1) is used by St. James to designate the birth, or family, or generated face. 3) The words Karà proív, according to nature, natural, as in Rom. xi, 21, 24. 4) vxikos (from yvxn, life, soul), psychical, soulical, as in 1 Cor. ii, 14. The apostle uses in his discussion this last word to answer the question, "With what body do they come?" The body sown, as the basis of the body raised, is said to be the psychical organism. The physical and genetical body is, indeed, sown in death, but of that he does not write, because "flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God," neither are they the basis of the spiritual body. Dr. Lionel Beals says that a very small part of the human body in health is alive and essential to its identity at any one time.

III. The body raised is somehow organically related to the body sown. The verb onɛípera is impersonal, and the pronoun "it" is implied, and refers to TÒ VEкpòv, the dead, here used either as an adjective with o@pa understood, or as a noun. The dead is sown a psychical body enswathed in and organically connected with the physical, corruptible, weak, and mortal body. The relation of the body sown to the body raised is somewhat and somehow comparable to that of "bare grain" sown and the God-given body raised. The vital principle is perpetuated. A further illustration, with a difference, is given in the several "kinds" of flesh-the flesh of birds, of beasts, of fishes, and of

men. The distinction is real, and is more positively set forth in the Hebrew and in the Septuagint (Gen. i, 20, 21, 24, 25) than it is by St. Paul. The first three kinds of animals were created mediately-the waters bringing them forth, and the earth bringing forth beasts and cattle after their kind. They were "formed out of the ground." God formed man quite differently-his body immediately and at once "of the dust of the ground (Gen. ii, 7); and then God breathed into the body "the breath of lives"-animal life (Bog), soul-life (vxn), intellectual life, gwn. The sŵn, sanctified by the Holy Ghost, becomes пvενμātikη wŋ, spiritual life. The "kind of the flesh of men" which differentiates it is this psychical organism.

The resurrection is not a vegetation, but it is the avάorãos or the eyɛipov of the soulical body "changed" into the spiritual body. "We shall all be changed, for this mortal must put on immortality." Further, "All who are in their graves (uvnuɛios) shall hear his voice, and shall come forth." John v, 28. "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." John xii, 24. St. Paul wrote (Rom. viii, 23) of "the redemption of our body" (odμaros), and in Phil. iii, 21, he says, "Who shall fashion anew the body (opa) of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory."

It is seen from these statements that St. Paul, in 1 Cor. xv, limits himself to the soulical body sown as the basis of the spiritual body to be raised. It excludes the notion of a spiritual body evolved at death; of the resurrection of the gross and material body; and that of the coming up of the soul from hades, with no reference to the body sown. Both the uncorrupted body of Christ was spiritualized after his resurrection, and the bodies of those who "remain" and "shall not sleep" shall be changed. The psychical organism shall be raised a spiritual organism. If the psychical body is that in which the soul (psyche) lives and acts, how does it differ from the spiritual body? The spirit, as also the soul, lives and acts in the physsical body. No: "There is a psychical body, and there is a spiritual body." The one is sown, the other is the body raised.

Bostwick Wawley,