Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-fmk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-26T01:43:29.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Poems, Propositions, and Dogma: The Controversy over Religious Language and the Demise of Theology in American Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

D. G. Hart
D. G. Hart
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral fellow in history and religion in Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the ironies in the annals of nineteenth-century American Protestantism is the impact that Horace Bushnell's famed address “Dogma and Spirit” had upon the theological scene. In his remarks before the Porter Rhetorical Society at Andover Seminary in September 1848, the Congregationalist minister from Hartford established his reputation as one of the more controversial, if not gifted, theologians in New England. Bushnell offered a vision of Christianity that he hoped would eliminate the theological bickering that, as he saw it, had plagued the church throughout its history. To be sure, many in Andover's audience would not have been surprised if Bushnell's quirky views on the Trinity and the Atonement drew fire from New England Calvinists. But few would have predicted that this reconciliatory address would provoke one of the era's more noteworthy debates, a lengthy one-and-a-half-year, 250-page quarrel between America's two most prominent Calvinist theologians, Princeton Seminary's Charles Hodge and Andover's Edwards A. Park.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 310 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bushnell, , “Dogma and Spirit,” in God in Christ (Hartford, 1849), pp. 277–356.Google Scholar The contest between Hodge and Park ran as follows under these imaginative titles: Park, , “The Theology of the Intellect and that of the Feelings,” Bibliotheca Sacra (hereafter cited as BS) 7 (1850): 533–569;Google ScholarHodge, , “The Theology of the Intellect and that of the Feelings,” Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (hereafter cited as BRPR) 22 (1850): 642–674;Google ScholarPark, , “Remarks on the Princeton Review,” BS 8 (1851): 135–180;Google ScholarHodge, , “Prof. Park's Remarks on the Princeton Review,” BRPR 23 (1851): 306–347;Google ScholarPark, , “Unity and Diversities of Belief even on Imputed and Involuntary Sin: with Comments on a Second Article in the Princeton Review,” BS 8 (1851): 594–647;Google ScholarHodge, , “Prof. Park and the Princeton Review,” BRPR 23 (1851): 674–695;Google ScholarPark, , “New England Theology,” BS 9 (1852): 170–220.Google Scholar

2. Foster, Frank Hugh, The Life of Edwards Amasa Park (New York, 1936), p. 155.Google ScholarHodge, , “The Theology of the Intellect and that of the Feelings, Article III,” in Essays and Reviews, ed. Nash, Arnold S. (New York, 1856), pp. 626–627.Google ScholarPark, , “The New England Theology,” p. 219.Google Scholar

3. For contemporary accounts, see Lord, David N., “Review of Prof. Park's Theologies of the Intellect and of the Feelings,” Theological and Literary Journal 3 (1850): 177–234;Google ScholarWallace, David A., The Theology of New England (Boston, 1856);Google Scholar“Orthodoxy in New England,” Southern Presbyterian Review 7 (1853): 52–60;Google Scholar “New England Theology,” Church Review and Ecclesiastical Register (1852): 349–360;Google ScholarEllis, George E., “The New Theology,” Christian Examiner 27 (1857): 321–369;Google ScholarStebbins, Rufus P., “The Andover and Princeton Theologies,” Christian Examiner (1852): 309–335;Google ScholarThayer, Christoper Tappan, “Heresy in Andover Seminary,” Christian Examiner 20 (1853): 80–87.Google Scholar For the implications of the debate, see Kuklick, Bruce, Churchmen and Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (New Haven, 1985), pp. 203–215;Google ScholarDouglas, Ann, The Feminization of American Culture (New York, 1978), pp. 143–196;Google ScholarPerry, Lewis, Intellectual Life in America: A History (New York, 1984), pp. 229–235;Google ScholarMarsden, George M., “Everyone One's Own Interpreter? The Bible, Science, and Authority in Mid-Nineteenth-Century America,” in The Bible in America, ed. Hatch, Nathan O. and Noll, Mark A. (New York, 1982), pp. 79–100;Google Scholar and Hart, D. G., “Divided Between Heart and Mind: The Critical Period for Protestant Thought in America,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 38 (1987): 254–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. “Dogma and Spirit,” pp. 291–293, 300–310, 325–327; Smith, Henry B., “The Relations of Faith and Philosophy,” in Faith and Philosophy, ed. Prentiss, George L. (New York, 1877), pp. 3–48.Google Scholar

5. On science in antebellum America, see Veysey, Laurence R., The Emergence of the American University (Chicago, 1965), pp. 133–138;Google ScholarHovenkamp, Herbert, Science and Religion in America, 1800–1860 (Philadelphia, 1978), pp. 19–38;CrossRefGoogle ScholarTurner, James, Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America (Baltimore, 1985), pp. 179–187;Google ScholarBozeman, Theodore Dwight, Protestants in an Age of Science (Chapel Hill, 1977);Google ScholarGreene, John C., American Science in the Age of Jefferson (Ames, Iowa, 1984);Google Scholar and Daniels, George H., American Science in the Age of Jackson (New York, 1968)Google Scholar. On American universities and graduate schools, see Veysey, , Emergence of the American University; Oleson, Alexandra and Brown, Sanford C. eds., The Pursuit of Knowledge in the Early American Republic (Baltimore, 1976);Google ScholarOleson, Alexandra and Voss, John, eds., The Organization of Knowledge in Modern America, 1860–1920 (Baltimore, 1979)Google Scholar, esp. John Higham, “The Matrix of Specialization,” and Veysey, Laurence R., “The Pluralized Worlds of the Humanities,” pp. 3–18, 51–106;Google Scholar and Kuklick, , Churchmen, pp. 195–202.Google Scholar On the decline of theology, see Kuklick, Churchmen, chapters 13 and 14; Turner, Without God, chap. 6; and Smith, James Ward, “Religion and Science in American Philosophy,” in The Shaping of American Religion, ed. Smith, James Ward and Jamison, A. Leland (Princeton, 1961), pp. 402–442.Google ScholarKuklick, Bruce, The Rise of American Philosophy, Cambridge Massachusetts: 1860–1930 (New Haven, 1977)Google Scholar, argues that the Harvard Pragmatists' philosophy of science was compatible with religion. For another perspective, see Smith, “Religion and Science.”

6. “Preliminary Dissertation on the Nature of Language as Related to Thought and Spirit,” in God in Christ, pp. 114, 92; and “Dogma and Spirit,” p. 280.

7. For Bushnell's theory of language, see “Preliminary Dissertation,” pp. 70–92; “Dogma and Spirit,” pp. 321–327; Crosby, Donald A., Horace Bushnell's Theory of Language (The Hague, 1975)Google Scholar; Kirschenmann, Frederick, “Horace Bushnell: Cells or Crustacea?” in Reinterpretation in American Church History, ed. Brauer, Jerald C. (Chicago, 1968), pp. 67–89;Google ScholarDurfee, Harold A., “Language and Religion: Horace Bushnell and Rowland G. Hazard,” American Quarterly 5 (1953): 26–48;CrossRefGoogle ScholarFiedelson, Charles, Symbolism in American Literature (Chicago, 1972), pp. 151–157;Google ScholarCross, Barbara, Horace Bushnell: Minister to a Changing America (Chicago, 1958), pp. 93–115;Google ScholarHutchison, William R., The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 43–48;Google ScholarGura, Philip F., The Wisdom of Words (Middletown, Conn., 1981), pp. 58–71;Google ScholarTurner, , Without God, pp. 157–163, 187–199;Google ScholarHovenkamp, , Science and Religion, pp. 49–56;Google Scholar and Kuklick, , Churchmen, pp. 165–169.Google Scholar

8. “Dogma and Spirit,” p. 306. For the influence of German Idealism on Bushnell, see Bushnell, , “Christian Comprehensiveness,” New Englander 6 (1848): 81–103;Google ScholarCross, , Horace Bushnell, pp. 21–30;Google ScholarKuklick, , Churchmen, pp. 161–169;Google ScholarSmith, H. Shelton, ed., Horace Bushnell (New York, 1965), pp. 25–29;Google Scholar and Ahlstrom, Sydney E., “Theology in America: A Historical Survey,” in Shaping of American Religion, pp. 280–283.Google Scholar For Bushnell's own studies, see Christ in Theology (Hartford, 1851)Google Scholar; Nature and the Supernatural (New York, 1858)Google Scholar; and The Vicarious Sacrifice (New York, 1866)Google Scholar.

9. Smith, , “Relations of Faith and Philosophy,” pp. 26–28;Google ScholarHodge, , “God in Christ,” Essays and Reviews, pp. 453–471;Google Scholar and Park, , “Theology of the Intellect,” pp. 546–550.Google Scholar Hodge's response was a review of God in Christ which included with “Dogma and Spirit” addresses on the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and the Atonement.

10. On biblical Criticism in antebellum America, see Brown, Jerry Wayne, The Rise of Biblical Criticism in America, 1800–1870: The New England Scholars (Middletown, Conn., 1969);Google ScholarMoorehead, James H., “Joseph Addison Alexander: Common Sense, Romanticism, and Biblical Criticism at Princeton,” Journal of Presbyterian History 54 (1978): 51–65.Google Scholar On theological method, see Bozeman, , Protestants in an Age of Science;Google ScholarGura, , Wisdom, pp. 15–31;Google Scholar and Marsden, “Everyone One's Own Interpreter?”

11. “God in Christ,” pp. 440–445. On Princeton's notion of Scripture, see Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1975), pp. 1–19;Google ScholarMarsden, George M., Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870–1925 (New York, 1980), pp. 109–118;Google ScholarSandeen, Ernest, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism (Chicago, 1970), pp. 114–131;Google Scholar and Mouw, Richard J., “The Bible in Twentieth-Century Protestantism: A Preliminary Taxonomy,” in Bible in America, pp. 142–144.Google Scholar

12. “The Relations of Faith and Philosophy,” pp. 20, 18. See also “The Idea of Christian Theology as a System,” in Faith and Philosophy, pp. 125–166. On Smith's Christocentrism, see Muller, Richard A., “Henry Boynton Smith: Christocentric Theologian,” Journal of Presbyterian History 61 (1983): 429–444;Google Scholar and Stoever, William K. B., “Henry Boynton Smith and the German Theology of History,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 24 (1968): 69–89.Google Scholar

13. “Preliminary Dissertation,” pp. 69–79; and “Dogma and Spirit,” pp. 308, 326–327.

14. “The Theology of the Intellect,” pp. 535–540, 545–551, 558–561. On Park's Convention Sermon, see Cecil,, Anthony C. Jr., The Theological Development of Edwards Amasa Park: Last of the “Consistent Calvinists” (Missoula, Mont., 1974), pp. 81–154;Google Scholar and Foster, , Edwards Amasa Park, pp. 148–171.Google Scholar

15. Hodge, , “The Theology of the Intellect and that of the Feelings, Article I,” in Essays and Reviews, p. 545.Google Scholar Some historians—Perry, , Intellectual Life, pp. 230–233;Google ScholarDouglas, , Feminization, pp. 177–178;Google ScholarHovenkamp, , Science and Religion, p. 55Google Scholar—incorrectly place Park's sympathies with the theology of the feelings. He identified his “Consistent Calvinism” with the intellect and Hodge's Old Calvinism with the feelings. Thus his intent was to defend the use of reason in theology and to demonstrate the intellectual superiority of his modified Calvinism.

16. Hodge, , “Theology of the Intellect,” pp. 548–549,Google Scholar and “God in Christ,” pp. 440–441; Smith, , “The Relations of Faith and Philosophy,” pp. 29–30.Google Scholar For a similar criticism of Park, see Smith, , “The Theological System of Emmons,” in Faith and Philosophy, pp. 218–219, 228–229.Google Scholar

17. “God in Christ,” pp. 443–447; and “The Theology of the Intellect and that of the Feelings, Article II,” in Essays and Reviews, pp. 607–611.

18. Bushnell, , “Dogma and Spirit,” pp. 303–310;Google ScholarPark, “Theology of the Intellect,” pp. 542–545;Google ScholarSmith, , “The Relations of Faith and Philosophy,” pp. 39–43;Google ScholarHodge, , “Theology of the Intellect,” pp. 565–569.Google Scholar

19. Park, , “New England Theology,” pp. 178–184;Google ScholarSmith, , “Relations of Faith and Philosophy,” pp. 42–43.Google Scholar On the effects of preaching upon theology, see Bushnell, , Twentieth Anniversary: A Commemorative Discourse Delivered in the North Church of Hartford, 05 22, 1853 (Hartford, 1853), pp. 12–21;Google ScholarCalhoun, Daniel, The Intelligence of a People (Princeton, 1973), pp. 279–291;Google ScholarScott, Donald M., From Office to Profession: The New England Ministry, 1750–1850 (Philadelphia, 1978), pp. 112–147;Google Scholar and Calhoun, Daniel H., Professional Lives in America: Structure and Aspiration, 1750–1850 (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 167–177.Google Scholar

20. “Theology of the Intellect,” p. 609.

21. See Clarke's, An Outhne of Christian Theology (New York, 1898), pp. 1–57,Google Scholar and Brown's, Christian Theology in Outline (Edinburgh, 1910), pp. 1–54.Google Scholar For other conceptions of theology, see Warfield, Benjamin B., Brown, William Adams, and Smith, G. B., “The Task and Method of Systematic Theology,” American Journal of Theology 14 (1910): 170–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the trends in American theology, see also Hutchison, , Modernist Impulse, pp. 76–144;Google ScholarAhlstrom, , “Theology in America,” pp. 285–298;Google ScholarKuklick, , Churchmen, pp. 216–229;Google ScholarHorton, Walter M., “Systematic Theology,” in Protestant Thought in the Twentieth Century: Whence and Whither? ed. Nash, Arnold S. (New York, 1951), pp. 105–111;Google Scholar and Smith, , “Religion and Science,” pp. 425–436.Google Scholar See also Ahlstrom's reasons for including James, William and Royce, Josiah as representatives of theological study in the late nineteenth century in Sydney Ahlstrom, Theology in America: The Major Protestant Voices from Puritanism to Neo-Orthodoxy (New York, 1967), pp. 63–74.Google Scholar

22. On Princeton's theology of Scripture, see Hodge, Charles, “Inspiration,” BRPR 29 (1857): 660–687;Google Scholar and Warfield, Benjamin B., “The Real Problem of Inspiration,” in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Craig, Samuel G. (Phillipsburg, N.J., 1948), pp. 169–228.Google Scholar On the place of Scripture in Princeton's theology, see Noll's, Mark A.introduction to The Princeton Theology, 1812–1921, ed. Noll, Mark A. (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1983), pp. 25–27, 41–45;Google ScholarMarsden, , Fundamentalism, pp. 109–118;Google ScholarAhlstrom, , “Theology in America,” p. 263;Google Scholar and Sandeen, , Roots of Fundamentalism, pp. 114–131.Google ScholarStrong, Augustus H., Systematic Theology, 7th ed. (New York, 1907)Google Scholar, and Mullins, E. Y., The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression (Philadelphia, 1917)Google Scholar, deserve mention as exceptions to the trends within academic theology. Yet the influence of idealistic philosophy often compelled Strong and Mullins to rely upon religious experience as the most certain source for knowledge of God. On Strong, see Wacker, Grant, Augustus H. Strong and the Dilemma of Historical Consciousness (Macon, Ga., 1985);Google Scholar on Mullins, see Ellis, William E., “A Man of the Books and a Man of the People,” E. Y. Mullins and the Crisis of Moderate Southern Baptist Leadership (Macon, Ga., 1985)Google Scholar.