a holy God and the irresponsibly unholy infant being. There is a real... displacency of God toward him. . . . He is contrarious and naturally, but not judicially, offensive to God," etc.

There are several remarks I would make here, not dogmatically but tentatively:

1. Does not this doctrine offend as much against "intuitive "as the usual interpretation of Rom. v?

reason

2. Does not the whole weight of the moral nature of God condemn that which is in its own nature, apart from its origin, offensive to the Deity? And can this be avoided by a distinction between natural and judicial condemnation?

3. Has not a speculative distinction been introduced here, which is wholly beyond the range of Scripture ideas and representations? I do not mean to suggest that it is anti-biblical, only unbiblical, since no proof-text can be found.

4. Is not Dr. Pope's doctrine preferable, since by the universal, absolute atonement we are relieved of all displacency and condemnation in God toward the infant and the entire race?

5. Finally, may it not be possible that by this natural condemnation you mean substantially what Pope and I understand Paul to mean by the language, "By the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation," and, "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners?"

This letter is already too long for me to enter upon the doctrine of the resurrection. I can only say that I agree with your entire comment on 1 Cor. xv, with one exception. I doubt whether the molecular identity of the dying and rising body is essential to the idea of resurrection and continued bodily and personal identity. That the same matter should constitute part of two different organisms at the time of death seems to me not only probable but certain. The reasoning of the paragraph in the second column on page 127, that "law can secure that the same material shall never be organic in two bodies at death" is inconclusive. If you will pardon a literalism bordering on the horrible, it could be disproved by a man's planting corn in moldering human remains [say a battle-field], eating the crop, allowing digestion and assimilation, and then committing suicide. Trusting that you will not be wearied with the excessive length of this letter, and hoping soon to hear from you, I remain,

Truly and fraternally,

JNO. J. TIGert.

As may well be supposed, the doctor speedily sent an incisive answer to this epistle, which may be transcribed without further introduction.

Office of the Methodist Quarterly Review, 805 Broadway, N. Y., November 8, 1883. [ MY DEAR PROFESSOR: Am obliged to you for your frank letYou do not, of course, understand that it is my purpose to convert or proselyte you to my views. The positions of us both

ter.

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 other 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; Tтмμа (Rev. xi, 8, 9, Matt. xxiv, 28, Mark vi, 9), translated body, carcass, corpse; and oua, 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 owμa 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) voikós, from pois, nature. The suffix Koç, has the force of al in English, like, similar; thus, ovoikos, 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 desig nate the birth, or family, or generated face. 3) The words katà ovoív, according to nature, natural, as in Rom. xi, 21, 24. 4) Tvxikos (from þvxò, 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 σлεíρera is impersonal, and the pronoun "it" is implied, and refers to тò vεкpòv, the dead, here used either as an adjective with owua 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