A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Some Notes on Charles Hodge
by
Nathan J. Barnes
The History of Protestant Theology in America
CHHI 90213
Dr. Duke
March 22, 2006
Sources
The letters and journals of Charles Hodge have not been published independently of the only full biography on Hodge which is written by his son, Alexander A. Hodge The Life of Charles Hodge (New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, 1969). However, important primary sources for the development of his thinking are available in his voluminous publications. According to James Smylie, Hodge contributed 5,000 pages to journal that he founded, the Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review,[1] of which he was the editor for forty-three years.[2] Hodge complied many of his important articles in Essays and Reviews Compiled from the The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1857).[3] The Way of Life, first published in 1841, is available with excerpts from other works compiled by Mark Noll.[4] Hodge wrote influential commentaries on Romans (1835)[5], Ephesians (1856)[6], and 1 (1857)[7] and 2 (1859)[8] Corinthians, all of which are still in print and currently used by students of the New Testament. He is well-known to contemporary New Testament students by his Systematic Theology (1871-3).[9] The most interesting points of his career are: his lifelong defense of Calvinism, his fight against Darwinism, his definition and defense of Presbyterian ecclesiology, and his defense comments on slavery. After a life of contributions to academia and Presbyterian Church, he died in his sleep at 6pm on June 19, 1878.[10]
Life[11]
Charles Hodge was born in Philadelphia on December 28, 1797. His parents were married by the minister who would become the president of Princeton Seminary in 1812, Ashbel Green.[12] Hodges father was a physician who served as a surgeon in the Revolutionary Army until he was captured in November 1776 at Fort Washington, New York. He was released after being held prisoner for some time and sustained a practice in Philadelphia. Hodges father died when he was only seven months old. His mother took in boarders and worked seamstress to afford Charles and his brother Hugh education at a classical academy in Somerville (1810) and then Princeton (1812).[13] Hugh became a doctor and at times helped his brother financially[14]; Charles, however, inexplicably enrolled in Princeton Seminary upon graduation. After seminary, Charles spent some time at the College developing an acute understanding of physiology and science.[15]
At seminary, Hodge was mentored by the seminarys first professor, Archibald Alexander. He would later refer to Alexander as his father in their correspondence. Two quotes should summarize Hodges view of the relationship.
There is no person beyond my own family of whom I think as frequently, or with as much affection, now that I am a stranger in a strange land, as yourself; and there is no person excepting my mother to whom I feel so deeply obligated. From my boyhood I have experienced your paternal kindness, and I shall cherish as long as I live the recollection of your goodness, and of the many blessings which through you God has mercifully granted me.[16]
"I cannot tell you how much your approbation cheers and encourages me, and especially the coincidence of the Commentary with your own views of the apostles meaning. Fashioned as I have been by your hands, you can indeed hardly be surprised at finding your own opinions more or less correctly reflected from anything that I write."[17]
When Charles entered the seminary in September 1816, classes were still being held in professors homes. The main seminary building that housed classrooms, the dormitories, and the library was built in 1817.[18] Charles was the first student to preach in the new Oratory.[19] At that time, the faculty consisted of the President, two professors, and two tutors. During his senior year, on May 6, 1819, Charles was asked by Archibald if he would consider being the fourth addition to the faculty.[20] In June 1820 the Seminary called Hodge to serve as an assistant teacher, and he rode bareback on a horse to Princeton to prepare for his work.[21] He was ordained by the Presbytery of New Brunswick in 1821 called as a full professor of Princeton Seminary in 1822.[22] During this time he married the great-granddaughter of Benjamin Franklin, Sarah Bache on June 17, 1822.[23]
The most significant turning point of Hodges career is his two year trip overseas to study in Germany. Hodges description of Halle can be contrasted with his impression of Wittenburg and Berlin. While Halle is essentially the pit of hell from whence heresy comes, Wittenburg and Berlin are stalwarts of the faith.[24] Halle essentially represents the heresy of German Pantheism[25] and Deism. Upon his arrival to the city, Hodge wrote to his wife, Halle is, beyond dispute, the dirtiest, ugliest, gloomiest town of its size that I ever saw.[26] A comparison to Tertullians description of Sinope is certainly not out of place.
"The Euxine Sea, as it is called, is self-contradictory in its nature, and deceptive in its name. As you would not account it hospitable from its situation, so is it severed from our more civilised waters by a certain stigma which attaches to its barbarous character. The fiercest nations inhabit it, if indeed it can be called habitation, when life is passed in waggons. They have no fixed abode; their life has no germ of civilisation; they indulge their libidinous desires without restraint, and for the most part naked... And sad as the fact that Marcion was born there, fouler than any Scythian, more roving than the waggon-life of the Sarmatian, more inhuman than the Massagete, more audacious than an Amazon, darker than the cloud, (of Pontus) colder than its winter, more brittle than its ice, more deceitful than the Ister, more craggy than Caucasus."[27]
While in Germany, a certain Dr. Tholuck doubtlessly impacted Dr. Hodge. Tholuck repeatedly warned Hodge of the awful condition of theology in Germany.
"Tholuck surprised me very much this evening by the account which he gave of the prevalence of Rationalism in Germany from 1790 to 1815 or 17. During this period, with the exception of the Tübingen theologians, there was scarcely a voice raised against the prevailing system of Deism. He had himself lived to his fifteenth or sixteenth year without having seen any person who believed in the Bible! excepting one boy, in the school to which he went."[28]
During Hodges sojourn in Germany, Professor Tholuck was not the only person warning him of the evil of German scholarship. Dr. Alexander warned Hodges of the danger of losing his faith in Germany.
"I hope that while you are separated from your earthly friends, you will take care to keep the communication with heaven open! Remember that you breathe a poisoned atmosphere. If you lose the lively and deep expression of divine truth if you fall into skepticism or even into coldness, you will lose more than you gain from all the German professors and libraries. May the Lord preserve you from error and all evil."[29]
"The air which you breathe in Germany will either have a deleterious effect on your moral constitution, or else by the strength of faith required to resist its effects on your spiritual health will be confirmed. I pray God to keep you from the poison of Neology! I wish you to come home enriched with Bible learning, but abhorring German philosophy and theology. I have been paying attention to Kants philosophy, but it confounds and astonishes me."[30]
Upon his return to Princeton, Hodge embarked on a long distinguished career defending Calvinism and Presbyterianism, fighting against German theology and philosophy as well as Darwinism.[31] Due to Hodges voluminous writings, I will only broadly cover the topics which have personally interested me. In this paper I am most interested in the nature of Hodges critique of Darwinism. I must address his doctrine of inerrancy, and the story of his change of mind regarding slavery at a later time.
Against Darwin
Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859 and The Descent of Man in 1871.Hodge, of course, had been at Princeton since 1822, and therefore, being very mature in his career, was among the American theologians who viewed Darwinism as atheism. As a Christian theologian, Hodge had a special interest in science. As a Calvinist, he believed that the physical world was the field in which God manifested his power and glory. Therefore, scientific research was a way of finding out more about the world which God had made, but also about the God who had made the world.[32] Second, by the time of Hodge, science had repeatedly been used to attack the Christian faith, so there was also an apologetic interest in scientific study.
Hodge first rebutted Darwin in a footnote to an article in July 1862.
"The object of this interesting work is to prove that there is no such thing as permanence in the species of natural history; that all existing forms of animal life have been derived through natural generation, from one, or at most, a very few original creations. It carries, however, its own refutation in itself, in the authors frank admission of the difficulties of his theory, and in the stupendous absurdity of his conclusion. This is expressed as follows: I believe that animals (i.e., all animals) have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants (all) from an equal or lesser number. .... I should infer, from analogy, that probably all the organic beings on this earth, have descended from some primordial form, into which life was first breathed."[33]
We can see that Hodge is unconvinced that Darwin threatens his view concerning the immutable permanency of the human race.[34] Hodge also wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Observer in 1863, in which he outlined his views concerning the relationship of science to the Bible.[35]
Science is not the opinions of man, but knowledge; and specially, according to usage, the ascertained truths concerning the facts and laws of nature. To say, therefore, that the Bible contradicts the facts, is to say that it teaches error; and to say that it teaches error is to say that it is not the Word of God. The proposition that the Bible must be interpreted by science is all but self-evident. Nature is truly a revelation of God as the Bible, and we interpret the Bible by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science.[36]
Hodge goes on to write that the people of God believed for five thousand years that the Bible taught that the earth was the center of the cosmos and no one during his time interprets passages of the Bible that teach this principle as if it were scientifically true because they interpret these passages via science.
"Shall we go on to interpret the Bible so as to make it teach the falsehood that the sun moves around the earth, or shall we interpret by science and make the two harmonize? Of course, this rule works both ways. If the Bible cannot contradict science, neither can science contradict the Bible. All those theories which in former ages scientific men have advanced against the clear teaching of the Scriptures have come to shame, and now every enlightened Christian votary knows that if his investigations seem to lead to conclusions contrary to the Bible, there must be some error in his process."[37]
Hodge also treats Darwinism in his Systematic Theology. Hodge approaches theology as the systemization of the collection of facts that are preserved in our canon of Scripture.[38] Hodge seems to make assumptions about God that eliminate all theological paradoxes.
"(1.) That is impossible which involves a contradiction; as, that a thing is and is not; that right is wrong, and wrong right. (2.) It is impossible that God should do, or approve, or command what is morally wrong. (3.) It is impossible that he should require us to believe what contradicts any of the laws of belief which he has impressed upon our nature. (4.) It is impossible that one truth should contradict another. It is impossible; therefore, that God should reveal anything as true which contradicts any well authenticated truth, whether of intuition, experience, or previous revelation."[39]
Hodge reviewed and challenged Darwin in his work What is Darwinism.[40] The doctrine of God requires that God be in personal control of creation. The heart of Hodges protests against Darwinism are twofold: (1) Hodge was convinced that Darwinism threatened the orthodox Christian theology of God based on clear readings of several Scriptures and (2) Hodge was not convinced that Darwinism was logically and scientifically sound.[41] Hodges protest, of course, begins with his theology of God and Scripture, as well as his anthropology.
"[The Scriptural] solution is stated in words equally simple and sublime: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth [Gen. 1.1]. We have here, first, the idea of God. The word God has in the Bible a definite meaning. It does not stand for an abstraction, for mere force, for law or ordered sequence. God is a spirit, and as we are spirits we know from consciousness that God is (1) A substance; (2) That he is a person; and, therefore, a self-conscious, intelligent, voluntary agent."[42]
We can sense from Hodge that Darwin had poured salt into the open wounds of natural theology. Theologians had long argued that nature is a witness to the existence of God, and a critical point in their argument was that the order of nature is evidence of the creative and sustaining role of God as preserved in the Bible. Philosophers had already countered that nature is not so organized: there is not purpose to every part of our bodies (e.g. males have useless mammary glands[43] and teeth on whales) and the existence of misery in the world.
For Hodge, Darwins theory removes the need for the creative and sustaining work of God in the world and therefore the theory amounted to atheism. Hodge does recognize that Mr. Darwin admits a Creator. This is done explicitly and repeatedly. Nothing, however, is said of the nature of the Creator and of his relation to the world further than is implied in the meaning of the word. [44] However, simply acknowledging an absent Creator is not enough to amount to theism for Hodge. God must be active in history and present in the lives of people. Furthermore, Natural selection is a selection made by natural laws, working without intention and design.[45]
It is neither evolution nor natural selection which gives Darwinism its particular importance. It is that Darwin rejects all theology or final causes. He denies design in any of the organisms in the vegetable or animal world. He teaches that the eye was formed without any purpose of producing an organ of vision.[46]
On the contrary, Hodge insists that God is continually personally active as Creator, giving benefits to his creation. Hodge concludes that if Darwin could actually assent that God made everything, then the question of evolution would have no impact on the argument for design.[47]
Why doesnt he say, they are the product of the divine intelligence? If God made them, it makes no difference, so far as the question of design is concerned, how He made them: whether all at once or by a process of evolution.[48]
Hodges analysis of Darwins atheism presents the person with two choices. First, one can believe the Word of the Bible when it says that God is in control of the wind, the rain, and general sustaining of creation. Second, one can completely disregard Scripture and believe that God created the world and refuses to act in history at all.[49]
Hodge points out that Darwin cannot explain all animal instincts by means of natural selection. That the honeybee builds cells in its beehive cannot be demonstrated to have evolved over time. Also, the phenomenon of sterile and neuter insects who (as Hodge notes) are more robust than their associates seems to indicate that there is no struggle for life.[50] Hodge also notes that the complexity of organs like the eye cannot be explained by a slow process. It is just as absurd as someone randomly typing on a type-writer and after millions of years of typing reproducing the Bible or Darwins theories.
Hodge's review of Darwinism is inept in my opinion because he does little more than expound on weaknesses that Darwin admits in his book but explains. Had Darwin not told Hodge the weaknesses in his argument, I wonder if Hodge could have found any. The one criticism that stands from Hodge is that Darwin cannot conclude that God is not the Creator, but merely that there is little or no evidence in the natural world that theologians have traditionally tried to claim. The order in creation is explicable via natural observation as far as natural observation can serve as evidence. However, natural evidence cannot speak for or against supernatural conclusions, which should prevent the theologian from rebuking the scientist.
Hodge on Slavery
Archibald lists a few articles on slavery[51]: On Slavery, April, 1836; On Emancipation as accomplished in the West Indies, Oct. 1838[52]; On Abolitionism, Oct. 1844; and On Emancipation as proposed by Dr. R. J. Breckinridge in Kentucky, Oct. 1849.[53] Several articles address the state of affairs in the country between 1861-71, The State of the Country, Jan. 1861; The Church and the Country, April 1861; England and America, Jan. 1862; President Lincoln, July 1865. [54] Several of these articles were published in pamphlets and widely circulated.
It is critical to note for the modern reader that a critical tenant of Hodge that drives his political views is that civil laws should be supported by biblical interpretation. In other words, Hodge believed that civil laws should be biblical, or else be immediately reformed. Hodge supported biblically justifiable slavery. Indeed, Allen Guelzo is able to prove that Hodge himself actually purchased a slave.[55] Like alcohol, the New Testament does not explicitly forbid slavery but gives regulations for the institution. All future laws must be biblically based, or at least not expressly forbidden in Scripture - including laws concerning slavery. Hodge believed that slaves should be educated in the Word of God, not be separated from their spouses or minor children, and receive fair compensation for their labor. Anything less would be biblically unjustifiable. Because Hodge was committed to approaching slavery from his biblical perspective, he was able to approach the issue of slavery and slaveholders separately, as well as approach slavery apart from the issue race.[56] Archibald writes that the editors of the review unanimously rebutted the radical idea that no slaveholder could be recognized as a Christian. The editors maintained that the doctrine that slave-holding is in itself a crime, is anti-scriptural, and subversive of the authority of the Word of God.[57]
Hodge went to great lengths to separate himself from the abolitionist movement. He often wrote against the abolitionist claims that slavery went against the command to love ones neighbor and emancipation was a duty of the Christian.[58] He considered anti-slavery literature produced by the abolitionists to be exaggerated propaganda, and useless because it seeks to change the minds of slaveholders with slanderous rhetoric.[59] The movement went against Hodges doctrine of the divinely established government, as well as his affinity for diplomacy. Hodge defined an abolitionist not as one who simply regards slavery as the greatest curse of the nation or as destructive of industry, the mother of ignorance, opposed to literature, antagonist to the fine arts, destructive of mechanical intelligence; that it corrupts people, retards population and wealth, impoverishes the soil, destroys national wealth, and is incompatible with constitutional liberty.[60] All of these problems can be remedied not by the abolition of slavery but by careful, biblical reform and regulation.[61] Hodges statement concerning what abolitionism is not is exactly parallel to Henry van Dyke.
"A man may believe, on political or commercial grounds, that slavery is an undesirable system, and that slave labor is not the most profitable; he may have various views as to the rights of slaveholders under the constitution of the country; he may think this or that law upon the statute books of the Southern States is wrong; but this does not make him an Abolitionist; to be entitled to this name, he must believe that slaveholding is morally wrong."[62]
The noted Hebrew scholar Professor Tayler Lewis wrote a response to van Dyke.[63] Like Hodge, Lewis was not convinced that slavery was a divinely inspired institution.[64] However, unlike Hodge, Lewis insisted that ownership of other human beings is inherently evil and dehumanizing, and alien to the patriarchal system of the Hebrew Bible.[65] Lewis notes that slaves in the Hebrew Bible were not listed with property but with the household, and therefore were not thought of as property.[66] All people were at risk to being a slave due to unfortunate circumstances like war, which is a critical difference - in America only the African people were subject to slavery. Lewis argument and conclusions are striking:
"And now, to take these holy things, and to make from them an argument in favor of slavery as it exists in these United States, of cotton-growing slavery, our trafficking, mercenary, property claiming slavery, that will sell a man, his children and his childrens children for its own worldly gain, and then content itself with the poor, conscience soothing plea that, perhaps he may, somehow, get Christianized in the process! It is rank sacrilege. No other name can be given to it, unless we suppose that they who abuse the Scripture are more the victims of the idea, a false idea, a foolish, false conservatism, more secular in its spirit than the unchristian radicalism with which it so vehemently contends."[67]
An abolitionist is one who believes that slavery is inherently evil in all circumstances and a slaveholder is a sinner who cannot be recognized as a member of the Christian community.[68] Hodge argues that like alcohol, slavery is regulated and not prohibited in the Bible. Therefore, there is no biblical or moral precedent for denying a persons right to own another person or to exclude such a person from Christian fellowship.[69] Hodge notes that the abolitionist claim that all slaveholders are evil not only ignores the biblical regulations, but also overlooks the nature of the slaveholder herself. The slaveholder can be kind, parental in her treatment of her slaves, anxious to prepare the slaves for freedom, and so on. Therefore, abolitionists are forced to hate good people who are slaveholders.[70]
In a letter to the editor of the Southern Presbyterian in Jan. 1861, Hodge expresses that he has sympathy for complaints against the activities of Northern abolitionists. The Southern Presbyterian had printed protests to some of Hodges work.
Hodge rebuts:
"You say that the writer of the article in question affirms that the aggressions or grievances of which the South complains have no real existence. The article, however, says that the South has just grounds of complaint, and that the existing exasperation towards the North is neither unnatural nor unaccountable. It says that the spirit, language, and conduct of the abolitionists is an intolerable grievance. It says that tampering with slaves is a great crime. That it is a grievances that would justify almost any available means of redress. It admits that all opposition to the restoration of fugitive slaves, whether by individuals, by mobs or legislative enactments, is immoral, and that the South has a right to complain of all such opposition."[71]
Hodge was determined to let Southerners know that all Northerners were not abolitionists.[72] In fact, Hodge fully supported the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.[73] In 1851, Hodge wrote in support of the act. In 1871, Retrospect, Hodge again writes that slaveholders should be able to carry slaves with them anywhere that they would normally be able to carry property, unless of course a sovereign territory specifically forbid it.[74] Hodge also believed that the Constitution did not give the Congress or anyone else the right to forbid the ownership of slaves. In his view, people should submit to governments penalty even if the government required them to sin. That is, a person should not sin if the law requires it, but should not resist any punishment that they may incur by their actions. Aside from the obvious contradiction of this dogma that is evident in the citation above from Hodge to the editor of the Southern Presbyterian, Jan. 3, 1861, this sentiment places Hodge neatly[75] against abolitionism and any resistance which comes from the South. Problems should be solved in unity and peace, both in the denomination and the country as a whole.
In a letter to J. C. Backus, Hodge insists that he had not changed his views on slavery in the past 15 years, and points to his article on slavery published in 1836 and to his commentary on Ephesians. His argument in Ephesians is impressive to me. He assents that slavery is evil, and it will pass away if slaveholders treat their slaves with equity and if slaves submit to their masters according to the Scripture. His exposition doubtlessly stroked the Southern ego, because they did feel that they treated their slaves with equity and saw slavery as a critical part of Southern life for the foreseeable future. Hodge is impressive because he both affirms and criticizes the institution of slavery - a position obviously crafted to preserve the unity of the Church. He argues that the abolitionist claim that slavery is inherently evil, but no less evil is the argument that Africans should be enslaved on the basis of race alone.[76] The mistake of those who hold the other extreme opinion on this subject, so far as the Bible is concerned, is that what the Scriptures tolerate as lawful under given circumstances, may be cherished as perpetual. This is unreasonable, as to maintain that children should, if possible, always remain minors.[77]
Hodge considered himself to hold what a modern reader would call a tolerant view towards slavery and did not espouse the extreme views of Dr. Reverend Benjamin B. Palmer's sermon (1860), "Slavery a Divine Trust: Duty of the South to Preserve and Perpetuate It."[78] Palmer preached this sermon on Nov. 29, 1860 in the First Presbyterian Church of New Orleans.
Palmer and Hodge do have similar views concerning slavery. The critical difference is that Palmer held that the institution of slavery is divinely established and should be preserved and expanded as it currently existed, and Hodge at least idealistically wanted reform to include conjugal rights, education, and eventual manumission. Like Hodge, Palmer sought the highest moral ground for slaveholders, defending the moral integrity of slaveholders as well as the institution itself. Unlike Hodge, Palmer argued that the African race by nature is subject to the Saxons, and it is the divine responsibility of the South to preserve and perpetuate the institution.
"Need I show... that any other than a tropical race must faint and wither beneath a tropical sun? ... We know better than others that every attribute of their character fits them for dependence and servitude. By nature, the most affectionate and loyal of all races beneath the sun, they are also the most helpless; and no calamity can befall them than the loss of that protection they enjoy under this patriarchal system. Indeed, the experiment has been grandly tried of precipitating them upon freedom, which they do not know how to enjoy; and the dismal results are before us, in statistics that astonish the world. With the fairest portions of the earth in their possession, and with the advantage of a long discipline as cultivators of the soil, their constitutional indolence has converted the most beautiful islands of the sea into a howling waste. It is not too much to say, that if the South should, at this moment, surrender every slave, the wisdom of the entire world, united in solemn council, could not solve the question of their disposal. Their transportation to Africa, even if it were feasible, would be but the most refined cruelty; they must perish with starvation before they could have time to relapse into their primitive barbarism. Their residence here, in the presence of the vigorous Saxon race, would be but the signal for their rapid extermination before they had time to waste away through listlessness, filth and vice. Freedom would be their doom; and equally from both they call upon us, their provincial guardians, to be protected. I know this argument will be scoffed abroad as the hypocritical cover thrown over our own cupidity and selfishness; but every Southern master knows its truth and feels its power. My servant, whether born in my house or bought with my money, stands to me in the relation of a child. Though providentially, owing me service, which providentially, I am bound to exact, he is, nevertheless my brother and my friend, and I am to him a gaurdian and a father. He leans upon me for protection, for counsel, and for blessing; and so long as the relation continues, no power, but the power of almighty God, shall come between him and me."[79]
We have seen above that Hodge encouraged people to follow the law and determine peacefully whether or not the Union should continue slavery, and there is no biblical or constitutional basis for the immediate and forcible abolition of slavery. In fact, since slavery is biblically regulated and not prohibited, the institution can be morally executed in peace. Palmer, however, argued that the institution is a divine responsibility. Thornwell argued that God gave Southerners alone the right to determine whether or not they will continue the institution.[80]
Reflections
Charles Hodge is deservedly an important figure in American Protestant theology. He was admirably committed to his various causes. Hodges commitment to Presbyterian theology, his fight against Darwinism, and his continual reflection on a variety of other social and theological issues make him a continually interesting read. Many of his works are useful even today as there are recent editions of all of his major works and the University of Michigan has made all of Hodges contributions to the The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review available online.
Hodges fight against Darwinism is important because he was obviously among the first to defend Christianity from its naturalistic presuppositions. Hodges arguments against evolution are quite popular today. However, Hodges weakness is that he simply identifies holes in Darwins argument to which Darwin plainly admits and does not identify significant problems himself.
Hodges position against slavery, while brilliant in Ephesians, is lacking. In my opinion, a Christianized slave trade is analogous to Christian justification for the Holocaust. Both the Christian support for American slavery and for the killing of millions of Europeans[81] in the Holocaust will forever remain a scar of unforgettable shame for Christian theologians. To his credit, Hodge realized that race is not an appropriate basis for slavery but utterly failed to recognize the dehumanization that occurs when one person is able to own another.
WORKS CITED
van Dyke, Henry J. "The Character and Influence of Abolitionism." In Fast Day Semons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country. New York: Rudd & Carleton, 1861.
Green, Ashbel. Life of Ashbel Green. Edited by Joseph H. Jones. New York: Carter, 1849.
Gould, George. Anamolies and Curiousities of Medicine (New York: Julian, 1956), 397.
Guelzo, Allen. "Charles Hodge's Antislavery Moment." In Charles Hodge Revisited: A Critical Appraisal of His Life and Work, ed. John Stewart and James Moorhead, 299-326. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Hodge, Alexander A. The Life of Charles Hodge. New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, 1969.
Hodge, Charles. "Abolutionism." The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 16, no. 4 (Oct 1844): 545-81.
________. Charles Hodge: The Way of Life. Edited by Mark A. Noll. New York: Paulinist, 1987.
Charles Hodge, Civil Government, The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 23.1 (January, 1851) 127.
________. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians. New York: Carter, 1856.
________. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Philadelphia: Grigg & Elliot, 1835.
________. "Diversity of Species in the Human Race." The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 34, no. 3 (1862): 435-464.
________. Essays and Reviews from the Princeton Review. New York: Carter, 1859.
________. An Exposition on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. New York: Carter, 1857.
________. An Exposition on the Second Epistle to the Corithians. New York: Carter, 1859.
________. "Mr. Everett's Report on Indian Affairs." The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 10, no. 4 (Oct 1838): 513-35.
________. "Slavery. By William E. Channing." The The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 8, no. 2(April 1836): 268-306.
________. Systematic Theology. Edited by . 3 vols. New York: Scribner, 1871-3.
________. "State of the Country." The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 33, no. 1 (Jan 1861): 1-36.
________. What is Darwinism? New York: Scribner, 1874.
________. What is Darwinism? And Other Writings on Science and Religion. Edited by Mark Noll and David Livingstone. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.
Lewis, Tayler. "Patriarchal and Jewish Servitude No Argument for Amerlcan Slavery." In Fast Day Sermons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country. New York: Rudd and Carleton, 1861.
Raphall, M. J. "Bible View of Slavery." In Fast Day Sermons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country. New York: Rudd & Carleton, 1861.
Thornwell, J. H. "On National Sins." In Fast Day Sermons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country. New York: Rudd & Carleton, 1861.
Stewart, John. "Introducing Charles Hodge to Postmoderns." In Charles Hodge Revisited: A Critical Appraisal of His Life and Work, ed. John Stewart and James Moorhead, 1-40. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Smylie, James. "Charles Hodge." In Makers of Christian Theology in America, ed. Mark G. Toulouse and James O. Duke, 153-60. Nashville: Abington, 1997.
Wallace, Peter. 'The Bond of Union': The Old School Presbyterian Church and the American Nation." PhD diss., University of Norte Dame, South Bend, IN, 2004.
NOTES
[1] James Smylie, "Charles Hodge," in Makers of Christian Theology in America, ed. Mark G. Toulouse and James O. Duke (Nashville: Abington, 1997), 153. Mark Noll confirms the count and writes in his introduction that the by 1872 the journal had become the second oldest quarterly review of any kind in the United States and had outlived all of the religious journals in existence when the Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review was first published in 1825, in Charles Hodge, Charles Hodge: The Way of Life, ed. Mark A. Noll (New York: Paulinist, 1987), 1-2. I am grateful that the University of Michigan has stored articles from the Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review from 1830-82 online at http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/moajrnl/browse.journals/prin.html.
[2] Alexander A. Hodge, The Life of Charles Hodge (New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, 1969), 99. I will cite this work for the remainder of the paper as Life. Due to the number of sources authored by Charles Hodge and his son A. A. Hodge, I will cite works later in the paper by the name of the work rather than by the author for the readers ease. John Stewart, "Introducing Charles Hodge to Postmoderns," in Charles Hodge Revisited: A Critical Appraisal of His Life and Work, ed. John Stewart and James Moorhead (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 1.
[3] Charles Hodge, Essays and Reviews from the The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (New York: Carter, 1857).
[4] Charles Hodge, Charles Hodge: The Way of Life, ed. Mark A. Noll (New York: Paulinist, 1987), 3.
[5] Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Philadelphia: Grigg & Elliot, 1835). All of Hodges commentaries listed here have editions published within the last fifteen years.
[6] Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (New York: Carter, 1856), reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
[7] Charles Hodge, An Exposition on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Carter, 1857). Reprinted in Wheaton: Crossway, 1995.
[8] Charles Hodge, An Exposition on the Second Epistle to the Corithians (New York: Carter, 1859). Reprinted in Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1994.
[9] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, ed., 3 vols. (New York: Scribner, 1871-3).
[10] Life, 583.
[11] I found Noll's introduction to be the most readable summary of Hodge's life. I will follow Noll unless otherwise indicated. Noll, 1-17.
[12] Ashbel Green, Life of Ashbel Green, ed. Joseph H. Jones (New York: Carter, 1849).
[13] The College itself grew considerably during Charles' time there. In 1812, it consisted of the President, two professors, and two tutors. Sixty years later, it had thirty instructors.
[14] A. A. Hodge in Life, 11, preserves some autobiography, No professor in Princeton was ever able to bring up and educate a family of children on his salary. My brother, without being asked, always helped me through.
[15] Possibly to solve the mystery of acute pain in his right leg. Life, 76; cf. 98.
[16] Hodge to Alexander, Nov. 2, 1826. Life, 105. Cf. Noll, 8.
[17] Hodge to Alexander, 1835. Life, 276; cf. 18, 69.
[18] Life, 46-7.
[19] Life, 46-7.
[20] Life, 65.
[21] Life., 75. Alexanders allusion to Matt. 21.1-11 is difficult to miss.
[22] Exceptionally moving is the story of the first death that Charles witnessed. A student fell ill and died in the company of his brothers who solemnly sang How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord. Charles writes, I have never witnessed a scene better calculated to impress the mind with the importance and value of religion, Life, 88.
[23] Love letters preserved in Life, 58-60. Cf. Life, 95.
[24] See especially Life, 148-52; 175.
[25] Pantheism is quite possibly Hodge's interpretation of a theological system which has safeguards that actually prevent pantheism. Neander, for example, explains "By no means - all that is meant by that phrase [alles Seyn ist das Seyn Gottes] is that God is the only real independent substance, and that all other existences are grounded in a mysterious way to Him." Life, 181.
[26] Hodge to his wife, Feb. 15, 1827.
[27] Tertullian, Against Marcion 1.1. AF.
[28] Hodge, journal entry for June 20, 1827.
[29] Alexander to Hodge, March 24, 1827. Life, 160. Formatting mine.
[30] Alexander to Hodge, July 27, 1827. Life, 160-1. Italics and bold mine for emphasis.
[31] Noll, 1.
[32] The reference is quoted from the introduction by the editors in Charles Hodge, What is Darwinism? And Other Writings on Science and Religion, ed. Mark Noll and David Livingstone (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 22.
[33] Charles Hodge, "Diversity of Species in the Human Race," The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 34, no. 3 (1862): 461. Cf. Noll and Livingston, 23; 49-50.
[34] "Diversity of Species," 461.
[35] We will not have enough time to cover Hodge's view of inerrancy in detail.
[36] Charles Hodge, "The Bible and Science," New York Observer, March 12 1863, p. 98. This article is conveniently available in Noll and Livingstone, 53-4; cf. Systematic Theology 1.10. Here, I believe, is Hodges greatest error.
[37] Noll and Livingstone, 53-4. I cannot understand how Hodge can so obviously make such a stark contraction. He has just written that science has demonstrated that the clear reading of some Scriptures must be interpreted through science. That is, the clear reading is scientifically incorrect. Therefore, Hodge has already conceded that science can contradict a clear reading of Scripture, which the people of God believed for five thousand years. It is interesting that Hodge can allow for the re-interpretation of the clear reading of the text for astrology and not natural science.
[38] Systematic Theology 1.1-17.
[39] Systematic Theology, 1.53.
[40] Charles Hodge, What is Darwinism? (New York: Scribner, 1874). This work is published for modern readers in Noll and Livingston, 61-169. For my modern readership, I will use the modern edition and cite it as Noll and Livingston because the editors did not supply the original page numbers.
[41] During his time, there were still respected scientists that accepted evolution but rejected Darwin's theory. He lists them in Noll and Livingston, 90.
[42] Noll and Livingstone, 64. The brackets are supplied by the editors for clarification. The parenthesis and capitalizations are Hodges.
[43] Someone who argues this point is unaware that it is possible for male humans to use their mammary glands. Perhaps this phenomenon was unknown during and before the 19th century. Darwin himself speculated that human mammary glands were useful at one time. Cf. George Gould, Anamolies and Curiousities of Medicine (New York: Julian, 1956), 397. Anamolies and Curiousities of Medicine was first published in 1896 in New York by W. B. Saunders. It is a wildly interesting work.
[44] In my opinion, this is a fatal weakness in Hodges argument that Darwin is an atheist. Noll and Livingston, 78.
[45] Noll and Livingston, 85.
[46] Noll and Livingston, 92.
[47] This is brilliant argument that is taken up by Hodge's famous student B. B. Warfield, who accepted Darwins evolution with this single qualifier. Warfield graduated from Princeton under Hodge in 1871, the same year that Darwin published Descent of Man, and at a time when Hodge was feverishly writing against Darwin.
[48] Noll and Livingston, 95.
[49] Noll and Livingston, 87.
[50] That is, the sterile insects are often very "fit" but cannot pass on their strength to others. Furthermore, the accidental sterility in itself is not conducive to the survival of the species. Noll and Livingston, 83.
[51] Peter Wallaces dissertation provides more than adequate background for Hodge, "'The Bond of Union': The Old School Presbyterian Church and the American Nation" (PhD diss., University of Norte Dame, South Bend, IN), 2004. He has graciously made his dissertation available online at http://www.peterwallace.org/dissertation/. Chapter eleven is particularly useful here The Collapse of the Center and the End of Old School Presbyterianism, available at http://www.peterwallace.org/dissertation/11war.htm. Unfortunately, Wallaces dissertation was unavailable to me in written form before the deadline for this paper, and his website edition does not have page numbers. Therefore, I will cite him by his footnotes, which will be easy to locate either online or in written form.
[52] Hodge addresses Indian affairs in this article. He seems concerned about the "happiness of the Indian" in this piece and able to separate the unethical treatment of indigenous people with the exploitation of slaves. Unfortunately, I am not able to address the background and nature of the problem here. Nevertheless, it is interesting and worth reading. Charles Hodge, "Mr. Everett's Report on Indian Affairs," The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 10, no. 4 (Oct 1838).
[53] As listed in Life, 333. The titles in the Review have similar but not exact titles. It should be easy enough for the reader to detect the citations. I preserved Archibalds terms because it is possible that he is referring to more than the actual portion of the journal than the actual specific article that I cite because often more than one article in a journal issue addresses similar topics, and there is a slight possibility Archibald could be referring to more than one article via a general topic. The reader will have to make up her own mind.
[54] Life, 460.
[55] Allen Guelzo, "Charles Hodge's Antislavery Moment," in Charles Hodge Revisited: A Critical Appraisal of His Life and Work, ed. John Stewart and James Moorhead (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 308. I was unable to access Guelzos evidence for this paper, but his argument seems convincing. He cites a letter that is not in Life: Hodge to H. L. Hodge, Dec. 12, 1828, in Box 9, File 3, Hodge Papers.
[56] Guelzo, 316-7. Hodges interpretative method forced him to approach the issues of slavery, slaveholders, and race as separate issues. See for example, Charles Hodge, "Slavery. By William E. Channing," The The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 8, no. 2(April 1836): 275. If slavery is separated from the issue of race in the mind of Hodge, it is not so much separate that modern people would not consider him a racist. I will cite this source as Slavery.
[57] Life, 335.
[58] Slavery, 270, 275, passim.
[59] Slavery, 273.
[60] Charles Hodge, "Abolutionism," The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 16, no. 4 (Oct 1844): 545.
[61] This places Hodge, in my opinion, with the majority of biblical interpreters of his day. See the review of the issue in van Dyke in Abolutionism,
[62] Henry J. van Dyke, "The Character and Influence of Abolitionism," in Fast Day Semons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country, (New York: Rudd & Carleton, 1861), 127. The outline of van Dykes argument against abolitionism is important: (1) Abolitionism has not foundation in the Scriptures; (2) Its principles have been promulgated chiefly by misrepresentation and abuse; (3) It leads to infidelity; (4) It is the primary cause of strife between North and South, 137.
[63] Tayler Lewis, "Patriarchal and Jewish Servitude No Argument for Amerlcan Slavery," in Fast Day Sermons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country, (New York: Rudd and Carleton, 1861).
[64] Cf. Lewis, Jewish Servitude, 177 to Hodge, Ephesians, 362.
[65] Lewis, Jewish Servitude, 186.
[66] This idea is rebutted by a prominent rabbi who notes that slaves are listed as property in the commandment, But the property in slaves is placed under the same protection as any other species of lawful property, when it is stated, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, or his field, or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his ***, or aught that belongeth to thy nieghbor. M. J. Raphall, "Bible View of Slavery," in Fast Day Sermons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country (New York: Rudd & Carleton, 1861), 238.
[67] Lewis, Jewish Servitude, 225-6. Lewis insists that the New Testament cannot be used to defend the sale and possession of human beings, 222-4ff.
[68] We see then that the issue of slavery not only threatened national unity but also spiritual unity.
[69] Abolitionism, 547.
[70] Abolitionism, 548.
[71] Hodge to the editor of the Southern Presbyterian, Jan. 3, 1861. Life, 462.
[72] Cf. Life, 464; Wallace, Bond of Union, notes 23-30.
[73] Wallace, Bond of Union, note 23.
[74] Life, 467.
[75] Cf., for example, Life, 333-4.
[76] Ephesians, 362.
[77] Ephesians, 363.
[78] Hodge to Dr. J. C. Backus, Dec. 28, 1860. Benjamin Morgan Palmer, Slavery a Divine Trust. Duty of the South to Preserve and Perpetuate It, Fast Day Sermons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country (New York: Rudd & Carleton, 1861) 57-80. In his sermon, Palmer preached that slavery was a divine institution and encouraged his congregation to secede from the Union and found a republic that permitted slavery. The Fast Day Sermons are a collection of sermons preached in 1860 by educated and important ministers representing both Northern and Southern sentiments. Palmer is on the extreme right. Cf. Charles Hodge, Civil Government, The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 23.1 (January, 1851) 127.
[79] Palmer, Slavery, 64-67. Cf. The immutable law of God, as expressed in nature, makes the territory assigned to the Anglo-Saxon race on this continent one nation, Charles Hodge, State of the Country, The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 33, no. 1 (Jan 1861): 3.
[80] J. H. Thornwell, "On National Sins," in Fast Day Sermons: or The Pulpit on the State of the Country (New York: Rudd & Carleton, 1861), 9-56.
[81] The Holocaust was not only a Jewish one, but millions of people from various backgrounds suffered needlessly at the hands of the Nazis. We remember them all.
by
Nathan J. Barnes
The History of Protestant Theology in America
CHHI 90213
Dr. Duke
March 22, 2006
Sources
The letters and journals of Charles Hodge have not been published independently of the only full biography on Hodge which is written by his son, Alexander A. Hodge The Life of Charles Hodge (New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, 1969). However, important primary sources for the development of his thinking are available in his voluminous publications. According to James Smylie, Hodge contributed 5,000 pages to journal that he founded, the Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review,[1] of which he was the editor for forty-three years.[2] Hodge complied many of his important articles in Essays and Reviews Compiled from the The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1857).[3] The Way of Life, first published in 1841, is available with excerpts from other works compiled by Mark Noll.[4] Hodge wrote influential commentaries on Romans (1835)[5], Ephesians (1856)[6], and 1 (1857)[7] and 2 (1859)[8] Corinthians, all of which are still in print and currently used by students of the New Testament. He is well-known to contemporary New Testament students by his Systematic Theology (1871-3).[9] The most interesting points of his career are: his lifelong defense of Calvinism, his fight against Darwinism, his definition and defense of Presbyterian ecclesiology, and his defense comments on slavery. After a life of contributions to academia and Presbyterian Church, he died in his sleep at 6pm on June 19, 1878.[10]
Life[11]
Charles Hodge was born in Philadelphia on December 28, 1797. His parents were married by the minister who would become the president of Princeton Seminary in 1812, Ashbel Green.[12] Hodges father was a physician who served as a surgeon in the Revolutionary Army until he was captured in November 1776 at Fort Washington, New York. He was released after being held prisoner for some time and sustained a practice in Philadelphia. Hodges father died when he was only seven months old. His mother took in boarders and worked seamstress to afford Charles and his brother Hugh education at a classical academy in Somerville (1810) and then Princeton (1812).[13] Hugh became a doctor and at times helped his brother financially[14]; Charles, however, inexplicably enrolled in Princeton Seminary upon graduation. After seminary, Charles spent some time at the College developing an acute understanding of physiology and science.[15]
At seminary, Hodge was mentored by the seminarys first professor, Archibald Alexander. He would later refer to Alexander as his father in their correspondence. Two quotes should summarize Hodges view of the relationship.
There is no person beyond my own family of whom I think as frequently, or with as much affection, now that I am a stranger in a strange land, as yourself; and there is no person excepting my mother to whom I feel so deeply obligated. From my boyhood I have experienced your paternal kindness, and I shall cherish as long as I live the recollection of your goodness, and of the many blessings which through you God has mercifully granted me.[16]
"I cannot tell you how much your approbation cheers and encourages me, and especially the coincidence of the Commentary with your own views of the apostles meaning. Fashioned as I have been by your hands, you can indeed hardly be surprised at finding your own opinions more or less correctly reflected from anything that I write."[17]
When Charles entered the seminary in September 1816, classes were still being held in professors homes. The main seminary building that housed classrooms, the dormitories, and the library was built in 1817.[18] Charles was the first student to preach in the new Oratory.[19] At that time, the faculty consisted of the President, two professors, and two tutors. During his senior year, on May 6, 1819, Charles was asked by Archibald if he would consider being the fourth addition to the faculty.[20] In June 1820 the Seminary called Hodge to serve as an assistant teacher, and he rode bareback on a horse to Princeton to prepare for his work.[21] He was ordained by the Presbytery of New Brunswick in 1821 called as a full professor of Princeton Seminary in 1822.[22] During this time he married the great-granddaughter of Benjamin Franklin, Sarah Bache on June 17, 1822.[23]
The most significant turning point of Hodges career is his two year trip overseas to study in Germany. Hodges description of Halle can be contrasted with his impression of Wittenburg and Berlin. While Halle is essentially the pit of hell from whence heresy comes, Wittenburg and Berlin are stalwarts of the faith.[24] Halle essentially represents the heresy of German Pantheism[25] and Deism. Upon his arrival to the city, Hodge wrote to his wife, Halle is, beyond dispute, the dirtiest, ugliest, gloomiest town of its size that I ever saw.[26] A comparison to Tertullians description of Sinope is certainly not out of place.
"The Euxine Sea, as it is called, is self-contradictory in its nature, and deceptive in its name. As you would not account it hospitable from its situation, so is it severed from our more civilised waters by a certain stigma which attaches to its barbarous character. The fiercest nations inhabit it, if indeed it can be called habitation, when life is passed in waggons. They have no fixed abode; their life has no germ of civilisation; they indulge their libidinous desires without restraint, and for the most part naked... And sad as the fact that Marcion was born there, fouler than any Scythian, more roving than the waggon-life of the Sarmatian, more inhuman than the Massagete, more audacious than an Amazon, darker than the cloud, (of Pontus) colder than its winter, more brittle than its ice, more deceitful than the Ister, more craggy than Caucasus."[27]
While in Germany, a certain Dr. Tholuck doubtlessly impacted Dr. Hodge. Tholuck repeatedly warned Hodge of the awful condition of theology in Germany.
"Tholuck surprised me very much this evening by the account which he gave of the prevalence of Rationalism in Germany from 1790 to 1815 or 17. During this period, with the exception of the Tübingen theologians, there was scarcely a voice raised against the prevailing system of Deism. He had himself lived to his fifteenth or sixteenth year without having seen any person who believed in the Bible! excepting one boy, in the school to which he went."[28]
During Hodges sojourn in Germany, Professor Tholuck was not the only person warning him of the evil of German scholarship. Dr. Alexander warned Hodges of the danger of losing his faith in Germany.
"I hope that while you are separated from your earthly friends, you will take care to keep the communication with heaven open! Remember that you breathe a poisoned atmosphere. If you lose the lively and deep expression of divine truth if you fall into skepticism or even into coldness, you will lose more than you gain from all the German professors and libraries. May the Lord preserve you from error and all evil."[29]
"The air which you breathe in Germany will either have a deleterious effect on your moral constitution, or else by the strength of faith required to resist its effects on your spiritual health will be confirmed. I pray God to keep you from the poison of Neology! I wish you to come home enriched with Bible learning, but abhorring German philosophy and theology. I have been paying attention to Kants philosophy, but it confounds and astonishes me."[30]
Upon his return to Princeton, Hodge embarked on a long distinguished career defending Calvinism and Presbyterianism, fighting against German theology and philosophy as well as Darwinism.[31] Due to Hodges voluminous writings, I will only broadly cover the topics which have personally interested me. In this paper I am most interested in the nature of Hodges critique of Darwinism. I must address his doctrine of inerrancy, and the story of his change of mind regarding slavery at a later time.
Against Darwin
Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859 and The Descent of Man in 1871.Hodge, of course, had been at Princeton since 1822, and therefore, being very mature in his career, was among the American theologians who viewed Darwinism as atheism. As a Christian theologian, Hodge had a special interest in science. As a Calvinist, he believed that the physical world was the field in which God manifested his power and glory. Therefore, scientific research was a way of finding out more about the world which God had made, but also about the God who had made the world.[32] Second, by the time of Hodge, science had repeatedly been used to attack the Christian faith, so there was also an apologetic interest in scientific study.
Hodge first rebutted Darwin in a footnote to an article in July 1862.
"The object of this interesting work is to prove that there is no such thing as permanence in the species of natural history; that all existing forms of animal life have been derived through natural generation, from one, or at most, a very few original creations. It carries, however, its own refutation in itself, in the authors frank admission of the difficulties of his theory, and in the stupendous absurdity of his conclusion. This is expressed as follows: I believe that animals (i.e., all animals) have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants (all) from an equal or lesser number. .... I should infer, from analogy, that probably all the organic beings on this earth, have descended from some primordial form, into which life was first breathed."[33]
We can see that Hodge is unconvinced that Darwin threatens his view concerning the immutable permanency of the human race.[34] Hodge also wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Observer in 1863, in which he outlined his views concerning the relationship of science to the Bible.[35]
Science is not the opinions of man, but knowledge; and specially, according to usage, the ascertained truths concerning the facts and laws of nature. To say, therefore, that the Bible contradicts the facts, is to say that it teaches error; and to say that it teaches error is to say that it is not the Word of God. The proposition that the Bible must be interpreted by science is all but self-evident. Nature is truly a revelation of God as the Bible, and we interpret the Bible by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science.[36]
Hodge goes on to write that the people of God believed for five thousand years that the Bible taught that the earth was the center of the cosmos and no one during his time interprets passages of the Bible that teach this principle as if it were scientifically true because they interpret these passages via science.
"Shall we go on to interpret the Bible so as to make it teach the falsehood that the sun moves around the earth, or shall we interpret by science and make the two harmonize? Of course, this rule works both ways. If the Bible cannot contradict science, neither can science contradict the Bible. All those theories which in former ages scientific men have advanced against the clear teaching of the Scriptures have come to shame, and now every enlightened Christian votary knows that if his investigations seem to lead to conclusions contrary to the Bible, there must be some error in his process."[37]
Hodge also treats Darwinism in his Systematic Theology. Hodge approaches theology as the systemization of the collection of facts that are preserved in our canon of Scripture.[38] Hodge seems to make assumptions about God that eliminate all theological paradoxes.
"(1.) That is impossible which involves a contradiction; as, that a thing is and is not; that right is wrong, and wrong right. (2.) It is impossible that God should do, or approve, or command what is morally wrong. (3.) It is impossible that he should require us to believe what contradicts any of the laws of belief which he has impressed upon our nature. (4.) It is impossible that one truth should contradict another. It is impossible; therefore, that God should reveal anything as true which contradicts any well authenticated truth, whether of intuition, experience, or previous revelation."[39]
Hodge reviewed and challenged Darwin in his work What is Darwinism.[40] The doctrine of God requires that God be in personal control of creation. The heart of Hodges protests against Darwinism are twofold: (1) Hodge was convinced that Darwinism threatened the orthodox Christian theology of God based on clear readings of several Scriptures and (2) Hodge was not convinced that Darwinism was logically and scientifically sound.[41] Hodges protest, of course, begins with his theology of God and Scripture, as well as his anthropology.
"[The Scriptural] solution is stated in words equally simple and sublime: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth [Gen. 1.1]. We have here, first, the idea of God. The word God has in the Bible a definite meaning. It does not stand for an abstraction, for mere force, for law or ordered sequence. God is a spirit, and as we are spirits we know from consciousness that God is (1) A substance; (2) That he is a person; and, therefore, a self-conscious, intelligent, voluntary agent."[42]
We can sense from Hodge that Darwin had poured salt into the open wounds of natural theology. Theologians had long argued that nature is a witness to the existence of God, and a critical point in their argument was that the order of nature is evidence of the creative and sustaining role of God as preserved in the Bible. Philosophers had already countered that nature is not so organized: there is not purpose to every part of our bodies (e.g. males have useless mammary glands[43] and teeth on whales) and the existence of misery in the world.
For Hodge, Darwins theory removes the need for the creative and sustaining work of God in the world and therefore the theory amounted to atheism. Hodge does recognize that Mr. Darwin admits a Creator. This is done explicitly and repeatedly. Nothing, however, is said of the nature of the Creator and of his relation to the world further than is implied in the meaning of the word. [44] However, simply acknowledging an absent Creator is not enough to amount to theism for Hodge. God must be active in history and present in the lives of people. Furthermore, Natural selection is a selection made by natural laws, working without intention and design.[45]
It is neither evolution nor natural selection which gives Darwinism its particular importance. It is that Darwin rejects all theology or final causes. He denies design in any of the organisms in the vegetable or animal world. He teaches that the eye was formed without any purpose of producing an organ of vision.[46]
On the contrary, Hodge insists that God is continually personally active as Creator, giving benefits to his creation. Hodge concludes that if Darwin could actually assent that God made everything, then the question of evolution would have no impact on the argument for design.[47]
Why doesnt he say, they are the product of the divine intelligence? If God made them, it makes no difference, so far as the question of design is concerned, how He made them: whether all at once or by a process of evolution.[48]
Hodges analysis of Darwins atheism presents the person with two choices. First, one can believe the Word of the Bible when it says that God is in control of the wind, the rain, and general sustaining of creation. Second, one can completely disregard Scripture and believe that God created the world and refuses to act in history at all.[49]
Hodge points out that Darwin cannot explain all animal instincts by means of natural selection. That the honeybee builds cells in its beehive cannot be demonstrated to have evolved over time. Also, the phenomenon of sterile and neuter insects who (as Hodge notes) are more robust than their associates seems to indicate that there is no struggle for life.[50] Hodge also notes that the complexity of organs like the eye cannot be explained by a slow process. It is just as absurd as someone randomly typing on a type-writer and after millions of years of typing reproducing the Bible or Darwins theories.
Hodge's review of Darwinism is inept in my opinion because he does little more than expound on weaknesses that Darwin admits in his book but explains. Had Darwin not told Hodge the weaknesses in his argument, I wonder if Hodge could have found any. The one criticism that stands from Hodge is that Darwin cannot conclude that God is not the Creator, but merely that there is little or no evidence in the natural world that theologians have traditionally tried to claim. The order in creation is explicable via natural observation as far as natural observation can serve as evidence. However, natural evidence cannot speak for or against supernatural conclusions, which should prevent the theologian from rebuking the scientist.
Hodge on Slavery
Archibald lists a few articles on slavery[51]: On Slavery, April, 1836; On Emancipation as accomplished in the West Indies, Oct. 1838[52]; On Abolitionism, Oct. 1844; and On Emancipation as proposed by Dr. R. J. Breckinridge in Kentucky, Oct. 1849.[53] Several articles address the state of affairs in the country between 1861-71, The State of the Country, Jan. 1861; The Church and the Country, April 1861; England and America, Jan. 1862; President Lincoln, July 1865. [54] Several of these articles were published in pamphlets and widely circulated.
It is critical to note for the modern reader that a critical tenant of Hodge that drives his political views is that civil laws should be supported by biblical interpretation. In other words, Hodge believed that civil laws should be biblical, or else be immediately reformed. Hodge supported biblically justifiable slavery. Indeed, Allen Guelzo is able to prove that Hodge himself actually purchased a slave.[55] Like alcohol, the New Testament does not explicitly forbid slavery but gives regulations for the institution. All future laws must be biblically based, or at least not expressly forbidden in Scripture - including laws concerning slavery. Hodge believed that slaves should be educated in the Word of God, not be separated from their spouses or minor children, and receive fair compensation for their labor. Anything less would be biblically unjustifiable. Because Hodge was committed to approaching slavery from his biblical perspective, he was able to approach the issue of slavery and slaveholders separately, as well as approach slavery apart from the issue race.[56] Archibald writes that the editors of the review unanimously rebutted the radical idea that no slaveholder could be recognized as a Christian. The editors maintained that the doctrine that slave-holding is in itself a crime, is anti-scriptural, and subversive of the authority of the Word of God.[57]
Hodge went to great lengths to separate himself from the abolitionist movement. He often wrote against the abolitionist claims that slavery went against the command to love ones neighbor and emancipation was a duty of the Christian.[58] He considered anti-slavery literature produced by the abolitionists to be exaggerated propaganda, and useless because it seeks to change the minds of slaveholders with slanderous rhetoric.[59] The movement went against Hodges doctrine of the divinely established government, as well as his affinity for diplomacy. Hodge defined an abolitionist not as one who simply regards slavery as the greatest curse of the nation or as destructive of industry, the mother of ignorance, opposed to literature, antagonist to the fine arts, destructive of mechanical intelligence; that it corrupts people, retards population and wealth, impoverishes the soil, destroys national wealth, and is incompatible with constitutional liberty.[60] All of these problems can be remedied not by the abolition of slavery but by careful, biblical reform and regulation.[61] Hodges statement concerning what abolitionism is not is exactly parallel to Henry van Dyke.
"A man may believe, on political or commercial grounds, that slavery is an undesirable system, and that slave labor is not the most profitable; he may have various views as to the rights of slaveholders under the constitution of the country; he may think this or that law upon the statute books of the Southern States is wrong; but this does not make him an Abolitionist; to be entitled to this name, he must believe that slaveholding is morally wrong."[62]
The noted Hebrew scholar Professor Tayler Lewis wrote a response to van Dyke.[63] Like Hodge, Lewis was not convinced that slavery was a divinely inspired institution.[64] However, unlike Hodge, Lewis insisted that ownership of other human beings is inherently evil and dehumanizing, and alien to the patriarchal system of the Hebrew Bible.[65] Lewis notes that slaves in the Hebrew Bible were not listed with property but with the household, and therefore were not thought of as property.[66] All people were at risk to being a slave due to unfortunate circumstances like war, which is a critical difference - in America only the African people were subject to slavery. Lewis argument and conclusions are striking:
"And now, to take these holy things, and to make from them an argument in favor of slavery as it exists in these United States, of cotton-growing slavery, our trafficking, mercenary, property claiming slavery, that will sell a man, his children and his childrens children for its own worldly gain, and then content itself with the poor, conscience soothing plea that, perhaps he may, somehow, get Christianized in the process! It is rank sacrilege. No other name can be given to it, unless we suppose that they who abuse the Scripture are more the victims of the idea, a false idea, a foolish, false conservatism, more secular in its spirit than the unchristian radicalism with which it so vehemently contends."[67]
An abolitionist is one who believes that slavery is inherently evil in all circumstances and a slaveholder is a sinner who cannot be recognized as a member of the Christian community.[68] Hodge argues that like alcohol, slavery is regulated and not prohibited in the Bible. Therefore, there is no biblical or moral precedent for denying a persons right to own another person or to exclude such a person from Christian fellowship.[69] Hodge notes that the abolitionist claim that all slaveholders are evil not only ignores the biblical regulations, but also overlooks the nature of the slaveholder herself. The slaveholder can be kind, parental in her treatment of her slaves, anxious to prepare the slaves for freedom, and so on. Therefore, abolitionists are forced to hate good people who are slaveholders.[70]
In a letter to the editor of the Southern Presbyterian in Jan. 1861, Hodge expresses that he has sympathy for complaints against the activities of Northern abolitionists. The Southern Presbyterian had printed protests to some of Hodges work.
Hodge rebuts:
"You say that the writer of the article in question affirms that the aggressions or grievances of which the South complains have no real existence. The article, however, says that the South has just grounds of complaint, and that the existing exasperation towards the North is neither unnatural nor unaccountable. It says that the spirit, language, and conduct of the abolitionists is an intolerable grievance. It says that tampering with slaves is a great crime. That it is a grievances that would justify almost any available means of redress. It admits that all opposition to the restoration of fugitive slaves, whether by individuals, by mobs or legislative enactments, is immoral, and that the South has a right to complain of all such opposition."[71]
Hodge was determined to let Southerners know that all Northerners were not abolitionists.[72] In fact, Hodge fully supported the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.[73] In 1851, Hodge wrote in support of the act. In 1871, Retrospect, Hodge again writes that slaveholders should be able to carry slaves with them anywhere that they would normally be able to carry property, unless of course a sovereign territory specifically forbid it.[74] Hodge also believed that the Constitution did not give the Congress or anyone else the right to forbid the ownership of slaves. In his view, people should submit to governments penalty even if the government required them to sin. That is, a person should not sin if the law requires it, but should not resist any punishment that they may incur by their actions. Aside from the obvious contradiction of this dogma that is evident in the citation above from Hodge to the editor of the Southern Presbyterian, Jan. 3, 1861, this sentiment places Hodge neatly[75] against abolitionism and any resistance which comes from the South. Problems should be solved in unity and peace, both in the denomination and the country as a whole.
In a letter to J. C. Backus, Hodge insists that he had not changed his views on slavery in the past 15 years, and points to his article on slavery published in 1836 and to his commentary on Ephesians. His argument in Ephesians is impressive to me. He assents that slavery is evil, and it will pass away if slaveholders treat their slaves with equity and if slaves submit to their masters according to the Scripture. His exposition doubtlessly stroked the Southern ego, because they did feel that they treated their slaves with equity and saw slavery as a critical part of Southern life for the foreseeable future. Hodge is impressive because he both affirms and criticizes the institution of slavery - a position obviously crafted to preserve the unity of the Church. He argues that the abolitionist claim that slavery is inherently evil, but no less evil is the argument that Africans should be enslaved on the basis of race alone.[76] The mistake of those who hold the other extreme opinion on this subject, so far as the Bible is concerned, is that what the Scriptures tolerate as lawful under given circumstances, may be cherished as perpetual. This is unreasonable, as to maintain that children should, if possible, always remain minors.[77]
Hodge considered himself to hold what a modern reader would call a tolerant view towards slavery and did not espouse the extreme views of Dr. Reverend Benjamin B. Palmer's sermon (1860), "Slavery a Divine Trust: Duty of the South to Preserve and Perpetuate It."[78] Palmer preached this sermon on Nov. 29, 1860 in the First Presbyterian Church of New Orleans.
Palmer and Hodge do have similar views concerning slavery. The critical difference is that Palmer held that the institution of slavery is divinely established and should be preserved and expanded as it currently existed, and Hodge at least idealistically wanted reform to include conjugal rights, education, and eventual manumission. Like Hodge, Palmer sought the highest moral ground for slaveholders, defending the moral integrity of slaveholders as well as the institution itself. Unlike Hodge, Palmer argued that the African race by nature is subject to the Saxons, and it is the divine responsibility of the South to preserve and perpetuate the institution.
"Need I show... that any other than a tropical race must faint and wither beneath a tropical sun? ... We know better than others that every attribute of their character fits them for dependence and servitude. By nature, the most affectionate and loyal of all races beneath the sun, they are also the most helpless; and no calamity can befall them than the loss of that protection they enjoy under this patriarchal system. Indeed, the experiment has been grandly tried of precipitating them upon freedom, which they do not know how to enjoy; and the dismal results are before us, in statistics that astonish the world. With the fairest portions of the earth in their possession, and with the advantage of a long discipline as cultivators of the soil, their constitutional indolence has converted the most beautiful islands of the sea into a howling waste. It is not too much to say, that if the South should, at this moment, surrender every slave, the wisdom of the entire world, united in solemn council, could not solve the question of their disposal. Their transportation to Africa, even if it were feasible, would be but the most refined cruelty; they must perish with starvation before they could have time to relapse into their primitive barbarism. Their residence here, in the presence of the vigorous Saxon race, would be but the signal for their rapid extermination before they had time to waste away through listlessness, filth and vice. Freedom would be their doom; and equally from both they call upon us, their provincial guardians, to be protected. I know this argument will be scoffed abroad as the hypocritical cover thrown over our own cupidity and selfishness; but every Southern master knows its truth and feels its power. My servant, whether born in my house or bought with my money, stands to me in the relation of a child. Though providentially, owing me service, which providentially, I am bound to exact, he is, nevertheless my brother and my friend, and I am to him a gaurdian and a father. He leans upon me for protection, for counsel, and for blessing; and so long as the relation continues, no power, but the power of almighty God, shall come between him and me."[79]
We have seen above that Hodge encouraged people to follow the law and determine peacefully whether or not the Union should continue slavery, and there is no biblical or constitutional basis for the immediate and forcible abolition of slavery. In fact, since slavery is biblically regulated and not prohibited, the institution can be morally executed in peace. Palmer, however, argued that the institution is a divine responsibility. Thornwell argued that God gave Southerners alone the right to determine whether or not they will continue the institution.[80]
Reflections
Charles Hodge is deservedly an important figure in American Protestant theology. He was admirably committed to his various causes. Hodges commitment to Presbyterian theology, his fight against Darwinism, and his continual reflection on a variety of other social and theological issues make him a continually interesting read. Many of his works are useful even today as there are recent editions of all of his major works and the University of Michigan has made all of Hodges contributions to the The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review available online.
Hodges fight against Darwinism is important because he was obviously among the first to defend Christianity from its naturalistic presuppositions. Hodges arguments against evolution are quite popular today. However, Hodges weakness is that he simply identifies holes in Darwins argument to which Darwin plainly admits and does not identify significant problems himself.
Hodges position against slavery, while brilliant in Ephesians, is lacking. In my opinion, a Christianized slave trade is analogous to Christian justification for the Holocaust. Both the Christian support for American slavery and for the killing of millions of Europeans[81] in the Holocaust will forever remain a scar of unforgettable shame for Christian theologians. To his credit, Hodge realized that race is not an appropriate basis for slavery but utterly failed to recognize the dehumanization that occurs when one person is able to own another.
WORKS CITED
van Dyke, Henry J. "The Character and Influence of Abolitionism." In Fast Day Semons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country. New York: Rudd & Carleton, 1861.
Green, Ashbel. Life of Ashbel Green. Edited by Joseph H. Jones. New York: Carter, 1849.
Gould, George. Anamolies and Curiousities of Medicine (New York: Julian, 1956), 397.
Guelzo, Allen. "Charles Hodge's Antislavery Moment." In Charles Hodge Revisited: A Critical Appraisal of His Life and Work, ed. John Stewart and James Moorhead, 299-326. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Hodge, Alexander A. The Life of Charles Hodge. New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, 1969.
Hodge, Charles. "Abolutionism." The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 16, no. 4 (Oct 1844): 545-81.
________. Charles Hodge: The Way of Life. Edited by Mark A. Noll. New York: Paulinist, 1987.
Charles Hodge, Civil Government, The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 23.1 (January, 1851) 127.
________. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians. New York: Carter, 1856.
________. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Philadelphia: Grigg & Elliot, 1835.
________. "Diversity of Species in the Human Race." The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 34, no. 3 (1862): 435-464.
________. Essays and Reviews from the Princeton Review. New York: Carter, 1859.
________. An Exposition on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. New York: Carter, 1857.
________. An Exposition on the Second Epistle to the Corithians. New York: Carter, 1859.
________. "Mr. Everett's Report on Indian Affairs." The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 10, no. 4 (Oct 1838): 513-35.
________. "Slavery. By William E. Channing." The The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 8, no. 2(April 1836): 268-306.
________. Systematic Theology. Edited by . 3 vols. New York: Scribner, 1871-3.
________. "State of the Country." The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 33, no. 1 (Jan 1861): 1-36.
________. What is Darwinism? New York: Scribner, 1874.
________. What is Darwinism? And Other Writings on Science and Religion. Edited by Mark Noll and David Livingstone. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.
Lewis, Tayler. "Patriarchal and Jewish Servitude No Argument for Amerlcan Slavery." In Fast Day Sermons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country. New York: Rudd and Carleton, 1861.
Raphall, M. J. "Bible View of Slavery." In Fast Day Sermons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country. New York: Rudd & Carleton, 1861.
Thornwell, J. H. "On National Sins." In Fast Day Sermons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country. New York: Rudd & Carleton, 1861.
Stewart, John. "Introducing Charles Hodge to Postmoderns." In Charles Hodge Revisited: A Critical Appraisal of His Life and Work, ed. John Stewart and James Moorhead, 1-40. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Smylie, James. "Charles Hodge." In Makers of Christian Theology in America, ed. Mark G. Toulouse and James O. Duke, 153-60. Nashville: Abington, 1997.
Wallace, Peter. 'The Bond of Union': The Old School Presbyterian Church and the American Nation." PhD diss., University of Norte Dame, South Bend, IN, 2004.
NOTES
[1] James Smylie, "Charles Hodge," in Makers of Christian Theology in America, ed. Mark G. Toulouse and James O. Duke (Nashville: Abington, 1997), 153. Mark Noll confirms the count and writes in his introduction that the by 1872 the journal had become the second oldest quarterly review of any kind in the United States and had outlived all of the religious journals in existence when the Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review was first published in 1825, in Charles Hodge, Charles Hodge: The Way of Life, ed. Mark A. Noll (New York: Paulinist, 1987), 1-2. I am grateful that the University of Michigan has stored articles from the Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review from 1830-82 online at http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/moajrnl/browse.journals/prin.html.
[2] Alexander A. Hodge, The Life of Charles Hodge (New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, 1969), 99. I will cite this work for the remainder of the paper as Life. Due to the number of sources authored by Charles Hodge and his son A. A. Hodge, I will cite works later in the paper by the name of the work rather than by the author for the readers ease. John Stewart, "Introducing Charles Hodge to Postmoderns," in Charles Hodge Revisited: A Critical Appraisal of His Life and Work, ed. John Stewart and James Moorhead (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 1.
[3] Charles Hodge, Essays and Reviews from the The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (New York: Carter, 1857).
[4] Charles Hodge, Charles Hodge: The Way of Life, ed. Mark A. Noll (New York: Paulinist, 1987), 3.
[5] Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Philadelphia: Grigg & Elliot, 1835). All of Hodges commentaries listed here have editions published within the last fifteen years.
[6] Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (New York: Carter, 1856), reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
[7] Charles Hodge, An Exposition on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Carter, 1857). Reprinted in Wheaton: Crossway, 1995.
[8] Charles Hodge, An Exposition on the Second Epistle to the Corithians (New York: Carter, 1859). Reprinted in Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1994.
[9] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, ed., 3 vols. (New York: Scribner, 1871-3).
[10] Life, 583.
[11] I found Noll's introduction to be the most readable summary of Hodge's life. I will follow Noll unless otherwise indicated. Noll, 1-17.
[12] Ashbel Green, Life of Ashbel Green, ed. Joseph H. Jones (New York: Carter, 1849).
[13] The College itself grew considerably during Charles' time there. In 1812, it consisted of the President, two professors, and two tutors. Sixty years later, it had thirty instructors.
[14] A. A. Hodge in Life, 11, preserves some autobiography, No professor in Princeton was ever able to bring up and educate a family of children on his salary. My brother, without being asked, always helped me through.
[15] Possibly to solve the mystery of acute pain in his right leg. Life, 76; cf. 98.
[16] Hodge to Alexander, Nov. 2, 1826. Life, 105. Cf. Noll, 8.
[17] Hodge to Alexander, 1835. Life, 276; cf. 18, 69.
[18] Life, 46-7.
[19] Life, 46-7.
[20] Life, 65.
[21] Life., 75. Alexanders allusion to Matt. 21.1-11 is difficult to miss.
[22] Exceptionally moving is the story of the first death that Charles witnessed. A student fell ill and died in the company of his brothers who solemnly sang How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord. Charles writes, I have never witnessed a scene better calculated to impress the mind with the importance and value of religion, Life, 88.
[23] Love letters preserved in Life, 58-60. Cf. Life, 95.
[24] See especially Life, 148-52; 175.
[25] Pantheism is quite possibly Hodge's interpretation of a theological system which has safeguards that actually prevent pantheism. Neander, for example, explains "By no means - all that is meant by that phrase [alles Seyn ist das Seyn Gottes] is that God is the only real independent substance, and that all other existences are grounded in a mysterious way to Him." Life, 181.
[26] Hodge to his wife, Feb. 15, 1827.
[27] Tertullian, Against Marcion 1.1. AF.
[28] Hodge, journal entry for June 20, 1827.
[29] Alexander to Hodge, March 24, 1827. Life, 160. Formatting mine.
[30] Alexander to Hodge, July 27, 1827. Life, 160-1. Italics and bold mine for emphasis.
[31] Noll, 1.
[32] The reference is quoted from the introduction by the editors in Charles Hodge, What is Darwinism? And Other Writings on Science and Religion, ed. Mark Noll and David Livingstone (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 22.
[33] Charles Hodge, "Diversity of Species in the Human Race," The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 34, no. 3 (1862): 461. Cf. Noll and Livingston, 23; 49-50.
[34] "Diversity of Species," 461.
[35] We will not have enough time to cover Hodge's view of inerrancy in detail.
[36] Charles Hodge, "The Bible and Science," New York Observer, March 12 1863, p. 98. This article is conveniently available in Noll and Livingstone, 53-4; cf. Systematic Theology 1.10. Here, I believe, is Hodges greatest error.
[37] Noll and Livingstone, 53-4. I cannot understand how Hodge can so obviously make such a stark contraction. He has just written that science has demonstrated that the clear reading of some Scriptures must be interpreted through science. That is, the clear reading is scientifically incorrect. Therefore, Hodge has already conceded that science can contradict a clear reading of Scripture, which the people of God believed for five thousand years. It is interesting that Hodge can allow for the re-interpretation of the clear reading of the text for astrology and not natural science.
[38] Systematic Theology 1.1-17.
[39] Systematic Theology, 1.53.
[40] Charles Hodge, What is Darwinism? (New York: Scribner, 1874). This work is published for modern readers in Noll and Livingston, 61-169. For my modern readership, I will use the modern edition and cite it as Noll and Livingston because the editors did not supply the original page numbers.
[41] During his time, there were still respected scientists that accepted evolution but rejected Darwin's theory. He lists them in Noll and Livingston, 90.
[42] Noll and Livingstone, 64. The brackets are supplied by the editors for clarification. The parenthesis and capitalizations are Hodges.
[43] Someone who argues this point is unaware that it is possible for male humans to use their mammary glands. Perhaps this phenomenon was unknown during and before the 19th century. Darwin himself speculated that human mammary glands were useful at one time. Cf. George Gould, Anamolies and Curiousities of Medicine (New York: Julian, 1956), 397. Anamolies and Curiousities of Medicine was first published in 1896 in New York by W. B. Saunders. It is a wildly interesting work.
[44] In my opinion, this is a fatal weakness in Hodges argument that Darwin is an atheist. Noll and Livingston, 78.
[45] Noll and Livingston, 85.
[46] Noll and Livingston, 92.
[47] This is brilliant argument that is taken up by Hodge's famous student B. B. Warfield, who accepted Darwins evolution with this single qualifier. Warfield graduated from Princeton under Hodge in 1871, the same year that Darwin published Descent of Man, and at a time when Hodge was feverishly writing against Darwin.
[48] Noll and Livingston, 95.
[49] Noll and Livingston, 87.
[50] That is, the sterile insects are often very "fit" but cannot pass on their strength to others. Furthermore, the accidental sterility in itself is not conducive to the survival of the species. Noll and Livingston, 83.
[51] Peter Wallaces dissertation provides more than adequate background for Hodge, "'The Bond of Union': The Old School Presbyterian Church and the American Nation" (PhD diss., University of Norte Dame, South Bend, IN), 2004. He has graciously made his dissertation available online at http://www.peterwallace.org/dissertation/. Chapter eleven is particularly useful here The Collapse of the Center and the End of Old School Presbyterianism, available at http://www.peterwallace.org/dissertation/11war.htm. Unfortunately, Wallaces dissertation was unavailable to me in written form before the deadline for this paper, and his website edition does not have page numbers. Therefore, I will cite him by his footnotes, which will be easy to locate either online or in written form.
[52] Hodge addresses Indian affairs in this article. He seems concerned about the "happiness of the Indian" in this piece and able to separate the unethical treatment of indigenous people with the exploitation of slaves. Unfortunately, I am not able to address the background and nature of the problem here. Nevertheless, it is interesting and worth reading. Charles Hodge, "Mr. Everett's Report on Indian Affairs," The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 10, no. 4 (Oct 1838).
[53] As listed in Life, 333. The titles in the Review have similar but not exact titles. It should be easy enough for the reader to detect the citations. I preserved Archibalds terms because it is possible that he is referring to more than the actual portion of the journal than the actual specific article that I cite because often more than one article in a journal issue addresses similar topics, and there is a slight possibility Archibald could be referring to more than one article via a general topic. The reader will have to make up her own mind.
[54] Life, 460.
[55] Allen Guelzo, "Charles Hodge's Antislavery Moment," in Charles Hodge Revisited: A Critical Appraisal of His Life and Work, ed. John Stewart and James Moorhead (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 308. I was unable to access Guelzos evidence for this paper, but his argument seems convincing. He cites a letter that is not in Life: Hodge to H. L. Hodge, Dec. 12, 1828, in Box 9, File 3, Hodge Papers.
[56] Guelzo, 316-7. Hodges interpretative method forced him to approach the issues of slavery, slaveholders, and race as separate issues. See for example, Charles Hodge, "Slavery. By William E. Channing," The The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 8, no. 2(April 1836): 275. If slavery is separated from the issue of race in the mind of Hodge, it is not so much separate that modern people would not consider him a racist. I will cite this source as Slavery.
[57] Life, 335.
[58] Slavery, 270, 275, passim.
[59] Slavery, 273.
[60] Charles Hodge, "Abolutionism," The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 16, no. 4 (Oct 1844): 545.
[61] This places Hodge, in my opinion, with the majority of biblical interpreters of his day. See the review of the issue in van Dyke in Abolutionism,
[62] Henry J. van Dyke, "The Character and Influence of Abolitionism," in Fast Day Semons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country, (New York: Rudd & Carleton, 1861), 127. The outline of van Dykes argument against abolitionism is important: (1) Abolitionism has not foundation in the Scriptures; (2) Its principles have been promulgated chiefly by misrepresentation and abuse; (3) It leads to infidelity; (4) It is the primary cause of strife between North and South, 137.
[63] Tayler Lewis, "Patriarchal and Jewish Servitude No Argument for Amerlcan Slavery," in Fast Day Sermons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country, (New York: Rudd and Carleton, 1861).
[64] Cf. Lewis, Jewish Servitude, 177 to Hodge, Ephesians, 362.
[65] Lewis, Jewish Servitude, 186.
[66] This idea is rebutted by a prominent rabbi who notes that slaves are listed as property in the commandment, But the property in slaves is placed under the same protection as any other species of lawful property, when it is stated, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, or his field, or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his ***, or aught that belongeth to thy nieghbor. M. J. Raphall, "Bible View of Slavery," in Fast Day Sermons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country (New York: Rudd & Carleton, 1861), 238.
[67] Lewis, Jewish Servitude, 225-6. Lewis insists that the New Testament cannot be used to defend the sale and possession of human beings, 222-4ff.
[68] We see then that the issue of slavery not only threatened national unity but also spiritual unity.
[69] Abolitionism, 547.
[70] Abolitionism, 548.
[71] Hodge to the editor of the Southern Presbyterian, Jan. 3, 1861. Life, 462.
[72] Cf. Life, 464; Wallace, Bond of Union, notes 23-30.
[73] Wallace, Bond of Union, note 23.
[74] Life, 467.
[75] Cf., for example, Life, 333-4.
[76] Ephesians, 362.
[77] Ephesians, 363.
[78] Hodge to Dr. J. C. Backus, Dec. 28, 1860. Benjamin Morgan Palmer, Slavery a Divine Trust. Duty of the South to Preserve and Perpetuate It, Fast Day Sermons: or the Pulpit on the State of the Country (New York: Rudd & Carleton, 1861) 57-80. In his sermon, Palmer preached that slavery was a divine institution and encouraged his congregation to secede from the Union and found a republic that permitted slavery. The Fast Day Sermons are a collection of sermons preached in 1860 by educated and important ministers representing both Northern and Southern sentiments. Palmer is on the extreme right. Cf. Charles Hodge, Civil Government, The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 23.1 (January, 1851) 127.
[79] Palmer, Slavery, 64-67. Cf. The immutable law of God, as expressed in nature, makes the territory assigned to the Anglo-Saxon race on this continent one nation, Charles Hodge, State of the Country, The Biblical Repertory and The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 33, no. 1 (Jan 1861): 3.
[80] J. H. Thornwell, "On National Sins," in Fast Day Sermons: or The Pulpit on the State of the Country (New York: Rudd & Carleton, 1861), 9-56.
[81] The Holocaust was not only a Jewish one, but millions of people from various backgrounds suffered needlessly at the hands of the Nazis. We remember them all.
