ART. VI.—A CORRESPONDENCE WITH DANIEL D. WHEDON, D.D.

In the biographical sketch prefixed to the first volume of Dr. Whedon's posthumously published Essays, Reviews, and Discourses, it is intimated that he always manifested an interest, lively and intelligent, in the young men of the Church, and that "he early sought to bring them into the ranks of his contributors."

In the spring of 1883 a young post-graduate student and tutor in theology in a Southern Methodist university, although totally unknown to Dr. Whedon, ventured to send him a manuscript, for whose publication he hardly dared hope. For his degree a thesis on the atonement was required, and having spent some months in the careful elaboration of a paper entitled The Methodist Doctrine of Atonement, he mailed it to Dr. Whedon after it had been approved by the theological faculty of the university as satisfying the purpose for which it was originally composed. After more than two months of somewhat anxious waiting, a letter from Dr. Whedon, dated "Sag Harbor, July 13, 1883," was received. His first words were those of generous commendation for the unknown scribe who had imposed upon him the ungrateful task of reading a bulky manuscript in the hot July days:

Your article, after some vexatious delays, has reached me here at my summering place, Sag Harbor, N. Y., and has been hastily read. I am greatly pleased with its clearness and vigor of style, and in general with its dignified tone of candor to Dr. Miley.

The source of the proposed contribution led the editor next to define his policy with respect to articles from the Southern Church; and as many are now proffering suggestions to the new editor of the Methodist Review, perhaps he would not object to a word from the most experienced of his predecessors:

I have now three articles from Southern Church contributors in hand, and I wish to frankly state my course in regard to them. You, of course, realize that the Quarterly of each Church is sustained by its own constituency. Yet I by far prefer that both should publish articles from the constituency of each. As, however, our constituency of contributors is far too great for the capacity of our Review, my admission of outside articles is

necessarily limited. Otherwise there would be just complaint that our own proper supporters were excluded too much in favor of others. I concluded, therefore, to limit the articles from the Church South to one per number. Dr. Bennett, of Ashland [the president of Randolph-Macon College, since deceased], has the place for October, Professor Callaway, Jr., for January, and yours in April. I know no better way. And very probably next May may close my official life.

The remainder of the letter is occupied with doctrinal expositions and criticisms, as follows:

In regard to your able article I may here note: 1. Your article does not vary so widely from Dr. Miley's view as you seem to think. There are sentences of yours that seem to me to admit all he claims. You are obliged to take in the rectoral element, and your distinction between God as rector and God himself seems to me exaggerated. There nevertheless remains some real difference between you in which I should probably agree with you. But back of all these are some deeper points in which, I suppose, we should differ widely.

2. I cannot indorse your extravagant laudations of Pope. His weak chapters on the Atonement were ably reviewed in our Quarterly by Dr. Miley, and their weakness exposed. Dr. Steele wrote and published an open letter to Pope on his Eschatology, and Pope directed the stereotype record to be changed. His doctrine of the Resurrection is in contradiction to all Methodist authorities. At the same time both its logic and its exegesis are of the poorest sort. Your eulogy of his exegetical powers I should feel compelled to omit. [He afterward relented and published it.] He maintains that the whole Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (including the seventeenth predestinarian article) are binding on Methodism. He expressly quotes the close of the ninth article as what "all Methodists believe," thus restoring what Wesley struck out, and involving himself and us all in the dogma of infant damnation. Our bishops very hastily put his work in our course of study, but one bishop lately assured me that he would be opposed to its continuance. I hope you will not insist on my publishing your eulogies on such a blunderer. I reviewed his doctrine of "hereditary guilt" in the Quarterly, and showed to my own satisfaction at least that it was anti-Wesleyan and absurd, contradicting our fundamental moral intuitions. I could wish that before committing yourself to his views you would read what has been said by us in the North on this subject. My sermon on" Substitutional Atonement " I hope soon to republish, and will in that case send you a copy. I will now say that Pope, and in some degree Watson, cross the very foundations of Arminianism, and destroy our whole argument against unconditional reprobation and infant damnation. In this they come in collision with such authorities as Wesley, Fletcher, Fisk, and

Olin. I shall probably have occasion to discuss these points in my next Quarterly. I could wish our general American Methodism could be completely harmonious in its theology. We respect what comes from Europe profoundly, but cannot be wholly overruled by it. D. D. WHEDON.

Very fraternally yours,

No part of my reply to this letter need be inserted here. The sentence which I have italicized in the foregoing letter is the key-note of the following one, which indicates sufficiently what was written in reply to the first:

Sag Harbor, September 6, 1883.

MY DEAR PROFESSOR: My vacation, too, will soon be closednext Saturday and my address will be at my office as above headed. [The letter was written on one of Dr. Whedon's official letter sheets.] My health was greatly recruited by this lovely sea-shore, and work is again my delight.

Agreement in views in theology is of course desirable; at the present time very desirable, for there are some threatening symptoms in other Churches, and Professor Park boldly avows that he looks to the Methodists for support from the Congrega tional revolt. If we can as Methodists, without undue surrender of personal independence, freely harmonize, so as to present an undivided front, a great point will be gained for our evangelical faith. My earnest wish is, therefore, before you commit yourself, occupying your responsible official position, to decide opinions on certain points, to have you possess a full survey of the situation by a perusal of what has been said by Northern Methodism. Your review of Dr. Miley is the result, as you realize, of but a partial survey.

In regard to Pope I cheerfully agree, and affirm that he is much the superior of Watson in erudition, but decidedly his inferior in style and logical ability. When Watson argues from the text he does it with far more force and conclusiveness, I think, than Pope. The merit of quoting a text and holding that as a finality does not rate so high with me as with you. At this day, when Scripture itself is subjected to so much query, a logical power of uniting reason with Scripture, and so presenting a double force, is of the first importance to theologians. Even Christian thinkers are scarce contented with a sic est scriptum, which is to shut the mouth and brain too. The harmony of our faith with our intuitive reason and common sense must be made clear, or theology will tremble and totter. Indeed, it was this intuitive demand which our fathers made in the battle with Calvinism. It was the protest of our intuitive sense of right and justice uniting with Scripture that won us our victory.

I have not myself seen Dr. Steele's letter nor Pope's amendment, but the point was an apparent favoring of post-mortem probation, which Pope consented to omit.

I hope you will read Miley's article on Pope, and also my notice of Pope. My sermon on "Substitutional Atonement" I will loan you if I can find more than one copy. I propose before a great while to have it reprinted. If you have within reach my Commentary, I would be very glad if you will read my notes on Rom. v, 12, and Eph. ii, 3.

On the resurrection, also, I would like to have you read my entire notes on 1 Cor. xv. You will find me there, as I think, maintaining the Pauline ground against the false reasonings of modern scientists, sticking to the sic est scriptum, which Pope deserts, and showing its true reasonableness and consistency with science. I may add that we shall soon put to press a work which I think will be a standard on the resurrection, taking the high ground of the molecular identity of the dying and rising body.

By the way, I am much pleased that my friend and contributor, Professor Worman, is to be one of your colleagues.

If you do not object, I would like to show your article to Dr. Miley, who, I doubt not, would like to correspond with you. D. D. WHEDON.

Fraternally and truly,

Dr. Whedon seemed deeply enlisted in forming the doctrinal views of the young Southerner aright, and soon came another epistle.

Office of the Methodist Quarterly Review, 805 Broadway, N. Y., October 15, 1883.) MY DEAR PROFESSOR: I have directed a copy of our October Quarterly to be mailed to you, and both you and Professor Tillett will confer upon me a favor by reading my synopsis notice of Dr. Prentiss (Presbyterian Quarterly Review) and also my book notices of Burwash and of Graham.* I would ask your special attention to page 761, my discussion of "temporal evils entailed upon us by Adam;" also pages 763, 4, my proof that "hereditary guilt " becomes so by personal appropriation; also pages 764, 5, the suggested solution of the problem of "infant nonprobation. The first two of these three seem to me to be part and parcel of our authorized theology. The last of the three has no authority at all, and pretends only to propose a solution of the problem, and a filling up of a blank space in our theology by natural deduction from admitted premises.

I send also a copy of my sermon on "Substitutional Atonement" which I did not dare send by mail until I ascertained where another copy could be found. Please ask of Professor

* These book notices, with other productions of Dr. Whedon's pen, have been recently reprinted in two posthumous volumes, as follows: Sermon on Substitutional Atonement in Essays, Reviews, and Discourses, p. 197; notice of Dr. Prentiss in Statements, Theological and Critical, under heading "The Methodist Idea of Human Probation," p. 269; notice of Professor Burwash, same volume, under heading "The Relation of Children to Redemption," p. 309; notice of Mr. Graham on p. 241, under "Evil Entailed by Natural Consequence," and also under "Infant Non-Probation," p. 328.

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. 1, pp. 258, 259.