Tillett to look it over. And I would be pleased to receive an expression of views from you both. The sermon must be carefully preserved and returned, as it is my only copy, and I shall probably have further use for it.

I may here note that Dr. Summers denies, in his notes on Romans, our personal guilt for Adam's sin, though I have nowhere seen any elaboration of the subject from his pen. Equally so do Dr. Bledsoe and Dr. Raymond.

Fraternally and truly,

D. D. WHEDON.

I trust I may now be pardoned for the insertion of my reply to both the foregoing letters, to the preparation of which, I well remember, much time and study were given.

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, Nashville, Tenn., October 18, 1883. MY DEAR DR. WHEDON: I feel that I owe you an apology for my long delay in answering yours of September 6. I wished to consult and attentively consider all the literature to which you referred me, so that I might correct my views if mistaken, and put myself right in the article by which I shall come before your Quarterly public. I am further obliged by your favor of October 15, and must now undertake a reply to both communications.

1. I still abide by my conviction that the fundamental necessity for atonement takes its rise within the circle of the essential attributes of Deity. The demand for atonement springs out of the innermost recesses of the divine nature. The distinction between God considered as rector and in mere relationship, on the one hand, and God considered absolutely in his essential and eternal nature, on the other, is vital. No theory of atonement that is the mere sum of the governmental and moral theories is satisfactory. I cannot see my way to any departure from the three necessities as set forth in Dr. Summers's lucid definition.*

2. I fully agree with you touching the desirability of Methodist unity in the statement and elaboration of a consistent, Arminian, scriptural body of divinity. But I must confess that "the merit of quoting a text [and by grammatical and historical exegesis getting its precise contents] and holding that as a finality" does rank very high with me. The natural bent of my mind is speculative and metaphysical, and I am an instructor in the whole range of topics embraced in moral philosophy in the most general sense. But I am more of a philosophical than of a religious skeptic. A truth of revelation clearly ascertained by proper and undoubted exegetical methods is for me of infinitely more worth than any so-called truth of reason. At the same time I recognise the absolute certainty of a limited number of these truths of reason, and that no theory contradicting them can be true. But I think we should first examine the foundations of the truth which *See Methodist Quarterly Review for April, 1884, p. 282, and Summers's Systematic Theology, vol. i, pp. 258, 259.

appears to us intuitive to see if we cannot bring reason into harmony with Scripture, rather than undertake to rationalize plain Scripture to bring it into harmony with so-called reason. The plain statement of Scripture must be maintained at all hazards, and sic est scriptum must be the end of controversy. You sug gest that, at this day, when the Bible itself is subjected to such criticism, it is well to buttress the Scripture with reason. I accept, on general principles, but must assume, as between you and me, that we occupy common ground concerning the plenary inspiration of the Book. I apprehend, moreover, that both of us could stand on this principle: Revelation may ascend above and stretch beyond, but must never contradict the intuitive reason. The vulgar rationalist would deny both branches of this statement. We agree that reason can only pronounce negative judgments against truths that fall within its sphere and come in contact with its fundamental affirmations. But, religion being true upon its own proper and independent evidences, and the truths of intuition shining in their own light with self-evidencing power and brilliancy, such contradiction, in the nature of the case, we should both agree to be impossible. The whole difference between us, I think, would lie in this: upon the emergence of an apparent contradiction, your revision and reconstruction would be of the exegetics to harmonize Scripture with reason, while my first suspicion would be that I was mistaken about the assumed intuitive truth, and I should try to harmonize reason with Scripture. Upon the supposition of a flat and irreconcilable contradiction (which is, of course, pure supposition, since neither of us would agree that it could be realized in fact) your standpoint would lead you logically to accept reason and reject Scripture, while I should accept Scripture and reject reason.*

I have been a diligent student of the history of philosophy, and while I by no means occupy the stand-point of G. H. Lewes, I have been brought to regard very skeptically the dogmatic results that most of the philosophers offer us.

I carefully read your notice of Pope some weeks ago, and, so far as I now recall, there is nothing in it to which I materially object. Unfortunately, the Quarterly containing Dr. Miley's article has been lost from the library. If it is at hand, and it is not asking too much of you, I should appreciate you kindness in sending it to me.

I have carefully studied your notes on Rom. v, 12-21, and in general I do not think we differ widely. I cannot, however, accept your interpretation of the force of the aorist in verse 12. I think it here has its usual force, referring to a momentary occurrence in past time, as opposed to the imperfect, denoting continuous action in the past. Of course the momentary occurrence *I am not sure that this last sentence was in my letter to Dr. Whedon. It is in both of the two draughts of the letter which I possess, but in one it is crossed Neither am I willing, at present, to be held rigidly responsible for it as an expression of my view.

out.

*

was the sin and fall of Adam. The statement of verse 12 is the same as that of verse 18, "By the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation," and of verse 19, "By one man's. disobedience many were made sinners." It seems to me that it does not at all benefit Arminianism to attempt to break the force of these plain Scriptures. But, lest you think me a Calvinist, let me hasten to explain. This sentence of Dr. Fisk's quoted by you [in the Commentary on Romans, p. 329] I accept and indorse heartily: "Hence, although, abstractly considered, this depravity is destructive to the possessors, yet, through the grace of the Gospel, all are born free from condemnation." The first member of each of the verses, 18 and 19, is fully balanced and reversed by the second member. I appreciate just as clearly as any body possibly can, that to admit that infants are actually born into the world justly under condemnation, is to grant the foundation of the whole Calvinistic scheme. Granted natal desert of damnation, and there can be no rational objection to limited atonement, sovereign election of a few out of the reprobate mass, irresistible grace to effect the salvation of the elect few, and final perseverance to secure the eternal salvation of this elect few "to the praise of the glory of his grace." That you might see how unimpeachable my doctrine is at this point, I wish I could send you a series of articles which I wrote in the Nashville Christian Advocate some years ago, entitled "The Calvinistic Methodist Answered." A good doctor of our Church was pressing some of Mr. Wesley's statements in the work on "Original Sin" unduly, and I met him with Mr. Wesley's final abridgment of the ninth article of the Church of England, just as you use it in the Quarterly. But you sufficiently understand my position on this point. On the other hand, we must not overlook the " solidarity of the species "a phrase which I have heard Dr. Summers repeatedly employ in his lecture-room. Men are not created upon independent pedestals of individual being, as are the angels. I accept fully the following statement of Dr. Pope's in the article on Methodist Doctrine in Dr. Clark's Wesley Memorial Volume, pp. 177, 178:

66

"The sin of Adam was expiated as representing the sin of the race as such, or of human nature, or of mankind: a realistic conception which was not borrowed from philosophic realism, AND

WHICH NO NOMINALISM CAN EVER REALLY DISLODGE FROM THE

NEW TESTAMENT. Christ gave himself as the mediator of God and men, a ransom for all before any existed; and this oblation before the foundation of the world was to be testified in due time, that individual sinners might know themselves to be members of a race vicariously saved as such.' . . . The virtue of the great reconciliation abolished the sentence of death, in all its meaning, as resting upon the posterity of Adam. In this sense it was absolutely vicarious. The transaction in the mind and

*For a full discussion of this classical and decisive passage in Romans, see my addition to Summers's Systematic Theology, vol. ii, pp. 35–44.

purpose of the most Holy Trinity did not take our presence or concurrence, only our sin, into account. Therefore the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world was, as it respects the race of Adam, an absolutely vicarious sacrifice. The reconciliation of God to the world-the atonement proper-must be carried up to the awful sanctuary of the divine Trinitarian essence."

This I think to be the doctrine of Rom. v, 12–21. I therefore accept the doctrine of Article II of our Confession, "to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men;" and of Article XX, "The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone." The whole transaction is a conceptual sinfulness, existing only in the view of God, entirely removed by the conceptual atonement, made and accepted before an individual of the race existed. Moreover, I am prepared to admit, that had not the intervention of the Second Adam been foreseen, universally making and constituting righteous all who were made and constituted sinners, Adam would never have been permitted to propagate his species, and the race would have been cut off in its sinning head. But, you may say, Is not all this useless and childish, and does it not dangerously encroach upon the demands of "intuitive reason?" I answer, If St. Paul had omitted Rom. v, 12-21, from his writings, there would perhaps have been no necessity for the most daring speculative theologian to penetrate into these mysterious regions. But, since the apostle has written as he has, our theology must adequately interpret him, or else incur from the Calvinist the charge of Rationalism, Pelagianism, etc. I think my doctrine is a better fortification against Calvinism than yours. I fully accept what you say in commenting on Eph. ii, 3, where you refer to Fletcher in the middle paragraph of the second column on page 270. I think, indeed, that "beauty, truth, and reason are the outcome." .. Upon the minor point of the interpretation of Rom. v, 13, 14, I am inclined to disagree with you, though I must admit I am far from confident. You say the apostle reasons: death, therefore sin, therefore law. He seems to me to reason: death, therefore sin; but evidently, says Paul, it is not the visitation of death on account of personal sin committed after the similitude of Adam's transgression, for before the law-when there is no law-personal sin is not imputed in the positive penalty of death; but, nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, therefore sin, therefore-not law, butthis universal death in the patriarchal age is because sin entered into the world and (shall I not add?) passed upon all men by Adam. That there are some grave difficulties brought in by other questions that at once suggest themselves, such as, Can there be no sin without positive law? I admit, but these difficulties are perhaps not insuperable, and, on the whole, this seems to me to be the apostle's reasoning.

On page 8 of "Substitutional Atonement" you say, "If the Christ, by suffering, furnished the requisites by which the sinner may be reformed and public right can be sustained, then we need no outpouring of personal wrath from the Father Almighty to solve the problem of his woes." If reformation of the sinner represents the "moral theory" and the sustaining of public right the "governmental theory," and the sum of these is your theory of atonement, of course I disagree, as indicated in the opening of this letter. On pages 6, 7, you say, "We shrink from the picture that is sometimes drawn with terrific distinctness, delineating the Father Almighty as hurling his thunders in blasting shocks. upon the unprotected person of his shrinking and suffering Son." I, too, shrink from this picture. When the object of the wrath is men instead of their substitute, it is sometimes painted thus: justice and wrath are represented as the native, original, inherent, essential, and central elements of the divine nature seeking vengeance and sa iety upon the sinner; while love and mercy are represented as extraneous, and to some extent unwelcome, powers that interfere to prevent the immediate visitation of justice which God is longing to inflict. This I believe to be false and very different from the true doctrine. The Scripture never says God is justice, using the substantive, but it does say, more than once, God is love. The true representation, therefore, is that the original, inherent, central, essential, and inalienable propelling element in the divine nature is love longing to expend itself in floods of mercy upon the head of the sinner, but justice interferes to prevent this procedure. The whole picture, in either case, is to some extent figurative, but the latter is the true picture.

I mail with this my pamphlet, Wandering Stars. I call your attention specially to the two sections I have marked: the first as bearing on the subject under discussion, and the second as expressing my views on the freedom of the will. I think you would be pleased to see how my copy of your work on the Will has margins and fly-leaves covered with annotations. It has been a hand-book of constant reference with me for several years, and you certainly have few more ardent disciples or admirers in your general doctrine. . . . If you wish to do so, I shall not object to your sending my article to Dr. Miley. . . . If you think he would like to correspond with me, as you intimate in your letter of September 6, you might send him a brief synopsis of my views, or this letter. I should certainly be glad to enter into a frank and full expression of opinion with Dr. Miley.

I have one more point to add. In the first column of page 270 of Commentary on Ephesians, under 2 you say: "Between the infant descendant of fallen Adam and God there is a contrariety of moral nature, by which the former is irresponsibly, and in undeveloped condition, averse to the latter, and so displacent to him." And in the notice of Burwash you elaborate, saying: "As depraved there is a contrariety of character between