The History of Christianity in America CH503 LESSON 12 of 24 John D. Hannah, PhD, ThD Experience: Professor of Historical Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas We begin now with what is the twelfth lecture in our series on American Religious History. Our subjects in this lecture are two. They have a commonality for this reason, that while one discussion, our first discussion will be about an event in Congregationalism, a movement in Congregationalism, the second will be about a movement in Presbyterianism, actually the subject is the same, and my subject in this lesson, though divided into two parts, one Congregational and the other Presbyterian, is the subject of adjustments in theology or tensions in late eighteenth, early nineteenth century theology. What I would like to discuss is what is called in Congregationalism, The Rise of New England Theology; what is called in Presbyterianism, New School/ Old Schoolism which is a split in the 1830 within American Presbyterianism. Let me begin by first talking about what is called The Rise of New England Theology. First intentions in late eighteenth century New England Calvinism, and particularly what I d like you to think about is that we might return to our first lecture in the National Period (lesson plan nine), in which we talked about the rise of Unitarianism. In that discussion, we mentioned the advent of the Enlightenment and the critical attack of the Enlightenment upon Colonial Calvinism. Then we said that in response to that rational attack upon Colonial Calvinism, many Calvinists felt compelled to adjust their religious ideas to bring them into sync with those rational attacks that revealed to many the soft, inconsistencies of Calvinism. Some felt very compelled to adjust their system in a fairly radical manner. Some felt compelled, for instance, to jettison the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It was illogical in the era of the Enlightenment, they thought, because truth to them was a product of that which is repeatable, that which is believable (meaning rational) and that which is worthy of God. And while that is not a bad methodology, what was perhaps not good about that methodology is that many 1 of 12
felt compelled to subjectively define what was worthy of God, what was repeatable, what was easily believable. So beginning in the late 1700s, there is a rational attack upon Christianity seen in the early Unitarians that we discussed like Charles Chauncy. They radically changed their Calvinism and became known as liberal Calvinists or Unitarians, which in 1805 polarized within Congregationalism around the great Hollis Chair of Divinity. The Unitarians breaking away or polarizing away these were predominantly in the Boston area. One scholar says that You could find most Unitarians within 20 miles of Boston. We traced that story, so I d like to back up in our first subject together and trace the more conservative line of the split from the Hollis Chair of Divinity. These people were called New Divinity Men, or sometimes New England Divines, or sometimes (Consistent) Calvinists. Consistent with parentheses because they thought they were consistently interpreting Calvinism to avoid the conundrums of their attackers. But the question is, are they consist? Now the areas that the Rationalists attacked Christianity from a New Divinity perspective were in the areas of anthropology by and large. The relationship of Adam (one) to the race is the doctrine of absolute depravity, the doctrines that suggested that which is contrary to ability(voluntarism, free choice, justice, equality) and of God s dealings with men. So in 1805, the Unitarians went their way, and in 1805 the non-unitarians (called New Divinity) went their way, and we discussed that story. Now what I would like to do for a few moments is to look at the Consistent Calvinists, and my purpose for this is to say that in the nineteenth century Calvinism was not received as readily, as uncritically, as it had been before. Perhaps it s the growth of democratic themes, perhaps it s insight from democratic themes, or whatever your view might be. But Orthodox traditional Calvinism as historically interpreted, it would seem, became increasingly under attack. Now there is some debate among scholars of the relationship of Jonathan Edwards, the famed pastor of Northampton, with the Consistent Calvinists who claimed him as a lineal heir. Edwards, in his last years when he was at Stockbridge, published or wrote some massive major works on the freedom of will, on the great doctrine of original sin defended, and work on true virtue. These works are difficult, and they in part have precipitated some of the 2 of 12
confusion. Consistent Calvinists believed that they were lineal heirs of Edwards, explaining more specifically and consistently his doctrines. Now in the area of our discussion, it s first important to list what Jonathan Edwards believed in the realms of anthropology. For instance, Edwards held to immediate imputation or the imputation of Adam s first sin to the race. Much of the debate in the early nineteenth century will be around the meaning of texts like Romans 5:12, For by one man sin came into the world and death through sin. Edwards held to immediate or imputed sin, that a part from our actions and prior to them, guilt was imputed to us for what Adam did. He held to original sin. Original sin is not only the first sin of Adam, but it entails guilt on man s account, leading to a corrupt nature and moral inability. Now if you look at our diagram of the followers of Jonathan Edwards, who in every sense thought that they were following their mentor some of which obviously had studied under him they are divided into two branches: Edwardsians and Hopkinsians. Hopkinsians are followers of Samuel Hopkins, and Edwardsians generally are followers of Jonathan Edward s son, Jonathan Edwards, Jr. While there are two branches and while some make a distinction within those two branches, for practical purposes I find that the difference is more in temperament than in theology. Now what I d like to do is to look at some examples of the New England Divines and see how they adjusted their Calvinism to make it more consistent. What they will do, in my judgment, is to take the doctrines of Calvinism and redefine them over the anvil of ability, of voluntarism, of notions like deserved punishment and even deserved righteousness. I think it might become clear as we go along. All of the followers of this New England tradition on this list before you share in common that they all deny imputed sin, meaning guilt and a corrupt nature. Some of them will deny passive regeneration, or that salvation is a work initiated and caused by the Holy Spirit. Only much later and in Horace Bushnell and others will you find a softening of the doctrine of the inspiration of Scriptures. So the New England Divines are those apparent or thinking followers of Jonathan Edwards who under the impact of the Enlightenment felt compelled in order to maintain evangelical Orthodox Christianity. They felt compelled to make some alterations in their understanding of Scripture so as to have a 3 of 12
greater appeal for the faith. They felt perfectly justified in doing this. Let me give you some examples, and we ll note just a little biography and then something of their theological changes. Samuel Hopkins, Yale graduate of 1741, studied for eight months under Jonathan Edwards, the great pastor. Hopkins himself was pastor for many years at Great Barrington in Massachusetts and then later in that capacity he wrote a very famous book. Actually he edited Jonathan Edwards treatise on original sin and his book on the nature of true virtue. What I am saying is that Hopkins felt compelled to deny the notion of imputed sin, or in other words, he explicitly denied the imputation of Adam s first sin to his posterity. He wrote, The plain and contestable reason has been given for this that all sin consists in the nature and quality of the exercises which take place in a moral agent. For sure he believed that man was guilty. For sure he believed that apart from Christ, men were bound for a Christ-less eternity, but the reasons for man s guilt and man s tragic end apart from Christ was different from that of Jonathan Edwards. Edwards would tie man s guilt to man s relationship to Adam in Genesis 3. Hopkins would argue what is called a Divine Constitution view of sin that we are born with no tragic detrimental influence from Adam. This view maintains we are born with a divine nature that is neutral, but organized in such a way that when we first sin, we become guilty. We re not born with guilt, but we become guilty by sinning. He says, Sin does not take place in the posterity of Adam in consequence of his sin, or that they are not constituted sinners by his disobedience. Hopkins would say it s not fair for me to be blamed for what someone else has done, all the while seemingly forgetting that it is certainly a greater error to receive righteousness from someone that you have not personally merited. It is not to be supposed that the offense of Adam is imputed to them to their condemnation. While they are considered as in themselves in their own persons innocent or that they are guilty of the sin of their first father antecedent to their own sinfulness. So he denied innate depravity and inherent sin, and he advocated a Divine Constitutional view of wickedness. In other words, he put it on a more voluntary individual base denying, seemingly, the traditional interpretation of Romans 5:12. Again he says, This sin which takes place in the posterity of Adam is not properly distinguished into original and actual, because it is all really actual. There is strictly speaking no other sin but actual sin. 4 of 12
I m saying that a shift occurs in New England Theology, and I think it occurs because these dear godly pastors react to the Enlightenment. They feel compelled to adjust their system slightly to present the best defense against the Enlightenment. They do not feel compelled to go to the extreme of the Unitarians and deny the Trinity. But they do feel compelled to allow within their system a greater place for human agency than would have been allowed within traditional Calvinism, at least until the eighteenth century and of Jonathan Edwards in particular. Here is Nathanael Emmons, a Yale graduate, as most of these men would be in 1767, an intimate friend of Samuel Hopkins, and later pastor in Franklin, Massachusetts where he trained eighty-seven men privately for the ministry. Like Hopkins, he believed in the exercises scheme of depravity; that is, we become sinners by our actions, not by the imputation of Adam s first sin. Imputation to these men seemed to be absurd because it would be blaming a person, holding a person culpable for something they had not themselves personally incurred. He says, Nothing come be more repugnant the Scripture reason and experience than the notion of our deriving a corrupt heart from our first parents. If we have a corrupt heart as undoubtedly we have, it is altogether our own and consists in our evil affections and other evil exercises and not in any moral stain, pollution, or depravity derived from Adam. So in other words, sin consists in the individual s free and voluntary exercise of selfishness, and that is what sin is. God has determined in the consequence of Adam s apostasy that his posterity should begin to be sinful as soon as they become moral agents. So these men could say that we indeed are liable for punishment, but not because of what someone else did and we are blamed for, but because of something each one of us actually did. So sin is not the fruit of the inheritance of a corrupt nature. It is the cause of corruption and just condemnation. Do you see the difference there? Here s Leonard Woods, a graduate of Harvard, pastor at Newburyport in Massachusetts and later professor at Andover Theological Seminary for many, many years. He was also one of the founders of the America Tract Society, the American Temperance Union, and a co-founder of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Woods, like Hopkins and Emmons, denied the concept of the imputation of Adam s first sin to the race and taught a Divine Constitution view of depravity. 5 of 12
These will appear honestly to be a cracked record because their denials are just about the same. Another example is Jonathan Edwards the younger, or the son of Jonathan Edwards. Jonathan Edwards the younger was a graduate of Princeton College. Remember his father finished his earthly career as president of Princeton, though for a short time. And then after pastorates in Whitehaven and Coleridge, Connecticut became president of Union College in Schenectady, New York. He was privately taught by Timothy Dwight and Jedidiah Morris. Now Jonathan Edwards the younger, like the men before him, denied imputed sin and taught a Divine Constitution view. Let me read you one quote. That Adam s sin should be ours and that we on account of it should be judged and condemned as sinner or that we should be the same as Adam or that God should so consider or suppose us has appeared to many to be absurd and pious and impossible. So he denied that mankind is corrupt by inheritance from Adam s fall. He believed that we are corrupt by our sinning. The difficulty with the Divine Constitution view of sin is that it does not explain why we all individually voluntarily sin. Why would we do that? The other important thing about Jonathan Edwards the younger is that he became a major proponent of what is called the Governmental Theory of the Atonement. In other words, he denied that Christ died bearing the sin of sinners, and bearing the penalty for sinners so perfectly and completely that God, who is just and the justifier of men, could justly and freely forgive them of their sins. Instead, this man in a way marks a new direction in New England Theology. He recognized that sin is not a matter of the corruption of nature leading to inability but actual sins (what we do, not what we are) then one does not need so much a penal substitution one to bear our sin for us they need an encouragement. So Jonathan Edwards became an advocate of the Governmental Theory of the Atonement. A theory given structure by Hugo Grotius of Holland in the seventeenth century and the essence of the Grotian theory or Governmental Theory of the Atonement is that Christ s death was a death to buttress the moral government of God. It was a cosmic object lesson that if we break the moral laws of the universe we will be punished. So it s sort of an encouragement view that is not propitious, not satisfying, not redemptive; it s an encouragement view that is negative. If we break God s law, we will be judged for it. 6 of 12
So it would encourage us by seeing it, not to practice wickedness ourselves, which obviously was certainly a heterodox position. Timothy Dwight, as we have already seen, was a graduate of Yale, a member of the legislator of Massachusetts for a short time, a pastor at Greenfield, Connecticut, and later president of Yale College from 1795-1817. Stephen E. Berk has an interesting sentence in his book on New England Theology when he says, Dwight worked at Yale to adjust Calvinism to prevailing conditions. And I take those prevailing conditions to be the Enlightenment criticism as expressed in Unitarianism against Orthodoxy, at least in part. This revivalist president of Yale specifically denied and rejected imputed sin. He denied original sin. He advocated a Divine Constitution view of inherent sin. He said, for instance, in his theology explained and defended, I do not intend that the posterity of Adam are guilty of his transgression. Neither do I intend that the descendants of Adam are punished for his transgression. He would deny the doctrine of predestination or the doctrine of foreknowledge as having determinative roles in the doctrine of salvation. I am trying to illustrate that Calvinism undergoes a rather significant modification, though not technically, and ultimately a necessarily heretical one in the early nineteenth century. These men still believed that man was in desperate need of a Savior, that men were bound for a Christ-less eternity without Him. It is unique in that the foundation upon which men are going to that destiny is being changed; it s being democratized from earlier Orthodox statements. Timothy Dwight, for instance, popularized the notion of the Governmental Theory of General Benevolence as we discussed under Edwards, Jr. He says, for instance, Therefore, saving grace is not so much a supernatural intrusion as the regular effect of a virtuous environment. Now that will tell us enormous amounts of a general trend of theology in the nineteenth century. It will be a way from the more high scholastic definitions of Creedal Calvinism to the more moral interpretations of historic Orthodoxy. When you come to Nathaniel Taylor, you come to a man who in many ways creedalizes, systematizes, and expresses the trends in New England Theology. He does this in such a way that often his particular exposition of these changes in the doctrine in understanding of man are denominated by titles that relate to him sometimes called Taylorism, sometimes call New Haven 7 of 12
Theology. It s called New Haven Theology because Nathaniel Taylor taught for over thirty-five years at Yale Divinity School. Therefore, he is the founder of a perhaps more radical expression of New England Theology. Taylor was a graduate of Yale College, served as Timothy Dwight s secretary for his systematic theology, was trained by Dwight, and after a pastorate at New Haven, Connecticut became professor of didactic theology at the formation of Yale Divinity School in 1822. He served until his death thirty-six years later in 1858. Nathaniel Taylor denied imputed sin. He denied original sin. He denied inherited sin, and he taught a Divine Constitution view of the sin nature. In addition, he advocated or adopted a Governmental Theory of the Atonement and taught the freedom of the will. He advocated active regeneration. I think you can see in Nathaniel Taylor clear distinct shades of Charles Grandison Finney, who seems somewhat dependent or clearly dependent upon the New England Divines such as Leonard, Woods, and Taylor for his mature expression of theology. Of conversion, for instance, Nathaniel Taylor says, Conversion is the act of the will or heart which consists in a preference to God to all other objects. What makes Taylor unique, I think, is that he applies New England Theology to a passionate concern for the art of evangelism and soul winning, and therefore his ideas will be greatly scattered about at least in early nineteenth century. I think personally that New England Theology was an attempt to hold back the Enlightenment and retard the progress of the Enlightenment until the eighth decade or so of the nineteenth century. But with the coming of classic American liberalism, New England Theology did not have the substance to withstand those new inroads and, therefore, ceased to be a viable alternative. We come now to Horace Bushnell, the last man in New Englnd Theology within our list. Actually, I think he would be a transition out of New England Theology into Classic Liberalism. Bushnell was a graduate of Yale in 1827, attending New Haven Law School. He became a tutor at Yale and later served at Yale Divinity School under Taylor in Goodrich. He also pastored for over a decade at Hartford. After a visit to Europe, he published his first book called Christian Nurture, which completely separated him from the theology of New England. I think he became the first official founder of the Liberal School of Theology in America. He later 8 of 12
moved to California where he spent his mature life. What s of interest for us in Horace Bushnell are three things. Bushnell, who began as a New England Divine, expressed nuances or differences of view in three areas: He denied original sin, inherent sin (those doctrines of man) but he seemed to go beyond them. For instance, he advocated a Sabellian view of Christ. He s the first theologian in the New England school to deny the ontological deity of Jesus Christ and adopted a second and third century heresy in the church called Sabellianism. He also jettisoned penal substitution and even the Governmental Theory of the Atonement and advocated a moral, or Abelardian, theory of the atonement. So to him Christ was not eternal God, but He became as God (or was divine by His moral excellences) and Christ s death was more of an example, or moral impetus, than it was anything else. Thirdly, and I think probably crucially, Horace Bushnell advocated a new interpretation of the Scriptures. He believed that the Scriptures could not be any longer because of the paradoxes in them. The Scriptures could no longer be interpreted in a literal fashion, but we must seek for deeper meanings within the Scripture itself. So in many ways I think Horace Bushnell represents an anticipation of what will occur later in the nineteenth century. New England Theology, I think, comes to an end with Edwards Amasa Park. I think he was the last defender of New England Theology. But Horace Bushnell seems to anticipate the next frontier of advance in American theology which we would call Classic American Liberalism or sometimes called New Theology, which will have a very determinative effect on the directions of the fortunes of Christianity in America. Now, I want to turn very briefly from our discussion of New England Theology which as I have said is a movement within New England Congregationalism to a movement within nineteenth century Presbyterian theology, which has been called the Old School/New School Controversy. The upshot of it seems to be that influences from New England Theology, particularly as expressed in the notions of Nathaniel Taylor at New Haven, influenced and penetrated the Presbyterian Church, bringing somewhat of a crisis or polarization in that church. New School Presbyterians, following the insights of Nathaniel Taylor and other Old School Presbyterians, were seemingly more traditionally Calvinist of the type of seventeenth century Orthodoxy. 9 of 12
This schism becomes very, very important for our later story. The roots of the turmoil, as you can see in your notes, go back to the 1801 Plan of Union, a cooperative effort between Congregationalists and Presbyterians. There s always a very close relationship between those two great denominations. An illustration of that, perhaps to illustrate the point, would be Jonathan Edwards, who graduates from Yale and was a Congregational pastor. But his first pastorate is in New York in a Presbyterian church. Jonathan Edwards, the Congregationalist, ends his career at Princeton College, a Presbyterian school, so there was always a close relationship between the two great denominations. And in 1801, those two denominations for the purpose of missions, meaning planting of churches and carrying of the gospel in New York, Ohio, Indiana, and the West decided upon the Plan of Union. The Plan of Union simply called for a cooperative effort in the founding churches in which the churches, after they were founded, would be free to call and then identify they could call men from either denomination and then identify with that respective denomination. Now what I m saying is this: what appears to have been through that close union in the Plan of Union is that Nathaniel Taylor s ideas began to penetrate the Presbyterian Church, and that caused polarization and tension. I am not saying that either New England Theology or New School Presbyterianism is heretical. I m simply saying that it was an attempt to modify or adjust Calvinism in the nineteenth century. I m saying that they adjusted doctrines of anthropology but still had a very certain view that men were sinners and that men needed Christ. I do know they adjusted the doctrine of the atonement, sadly, and later even the doctrine of the integrity of Scripture. So there s a little bit of inconsistency here, but we will perhaps clear it up as we go. Now in 1828, Nathaniel Taylor at Yale Divinity School prepared a commencement address which attacked the doctrine of original sin, and that seems to have precipitated the polarization in the Presbyterian Church because of the Plan of Union. Within the Presbyterian Church, there are two outstanding Presbyterians that seem to have bought into what we would call New England ideas, which precipitated very deep concern if not clash. The first of these was Albert Barnes, pastor at Morristown, New Jersey, who in 1829 preached a sermon entitled, The Way of Salvation, a very fundamentally pivotal sermon in story. 10 of 12
In that sermon, Taylor denied imputed sin and asserted that mankind after Adam was in no way liable for Adam s sin, and then announced his essential agreement with Nathaniel Taylor. A year later, he was called to the First Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, considered as one of the first and mother churches in that great denomination. That precipitated a clash with Ashville Green, leading to heresy charges in 1831 and again in 1835. So Albert Barnes becomes the vehicle for mounting tensions over the same issues, but this time within his church, the Presbyterian Church. Parallel to Albert Barnes in the East in Philadelphia was the great Lyman Beecher, who was president at that time of Lane Theological Seminary, a Plan of Union school in Cincinnati, Ohio. Although he was a Congregationalist, he was a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati. He was accused of the heresy of denying original sin, advocating human ability in salvation, and denying passive regeneration. In 1836, Union Theological Seminar was formed, a school that was formed to, in part, continue the new theological currents within the Presbyterian Church and in a way somewhat of an antithesis to Princeton Theological Seminar, which would take the Old School party line. So what I am saying is that influence from New England Theology via the Plan of Union penetrated the Presbyterian Church, becoming manifest in Albert Barnes and in the great and deeply influential Lyman Beecher one in the East, one in the West that polarized the Presbyterians. It will eventually divide them into New School Presbyterians that will follow the innovations of Nathaniel Taylor and Old School Presbyterians. New School Presbyterians will identify with Union; Old School largely with Princeton. Schism came about in 1837 within the Presbyterian Church between those two factions. In 1838, New Schoolers sought readmission and drafted what is called the Auburn Affirmation. Auburn Affirmation will become important because there ll be a later Auburn Affirmation in the 1920s but with no relationship between the two directly. New Schoolers sought readmission into the church which was prevented, and in 1838 the schism was complete. After litigation over commonality of property, the Old School was declared to be the legal successor of the older denomination. The center of the Old School was Princeton, shaped by Archibald Alexander and Charles Hodge and later others. The New School center will be Union Theological Seminary in New 11 of 12
York. The purpose of this lesson has been to describe two movements of similarity one in Congregationalism and one in Presbyterianism. Christ-Centered Learning Anytime, Anywhere 12 of 12