LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY

The Theology of Charles Hodge

Submitted to Dr. John Landers

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of

CHHI 610 – D01

The Historical Development of Christian Theology

by

Caleb R. Brown
May 13, 2018
 Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………...…………………...iii

Early Life…………………………………………………………………………...…iii

Early Career…………………………………………………………………………...v

Theological Development Amidst Controversy………………………………...…..vi

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….…xi

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………...…xiii

ii
 Introduction
Charles Hodge and his theology were widely known in nineteenth century

America. Hodge was so famous during his tenure at Princeton that Paul Gutjahr states of him as

bearing the title The Pope of Presbyterianism.1 Such a title is somewhat ironic as well as

humorous for a tradition stemming from the Protestant Reformation. What sort of theological

legacy did Hodge leave for the annals of historians to pour through to bear such a grand and

ironic title? This paper will attempt to answer this question. The thesis of this paper will examine

the theology of Charles Hodge and show how it developed and evolved pre and post eras of the

Second Great Awakening when the church in the western world was attempting to make sense of

the mass conversions that transpired during this amazing time in the history of America and the

church of Jesus Christ.

Early Life
This paper would fail if it were not to mention the history of Charles Hodge’s upbringing

that reveal there was a theological development. Without mentioning the tradition that Hodge

was reared in, one may miss that there ever was an evolution at all. Charles’ father was Andrew

Hodge who sided with the New Side in the early New Side/Old Side controversy of the First

Great Awakening. This event was a pre-cursor to the New School-Old School Controversy that

his son Charles would be at the center of in the Second Great Awakening with Hodge finding

himself on the side of the Old School view—a view that was antecedent to the revivalist view of

the New Side/Whitfieldian tradition he was reared in. Charles and his brother were raised in the

Second Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia. The Second Presbyterian Church was part of the

1
Paul C. Gutjahr, Charles Hodge: Guardian of American Orthodoxy, (Oxford University
Press, 2011), 3.

iii
Whitfieldian/New Side tradition that split from the more critical Old Side, hyper-Calvinist First

Presbyterian Church. The Old Siders were suspicious of Whitfield and his adherents who were

believed to be over emphasizing the emotional response of the mass conversions that sprang

from Whitfield’s preaching. Charles was baptized and catechized by the revivalist pastor Ashbel

Green.2 Ashbel Green remained a constant in Hodges life and career. While their relationship

was not always so congenial according to Gutjahr, the same man who baptized Hodge and

married his parents as well as resided over their funeral, would also be the President of Princeton

College where the young Hodge would begin his formal education in 18123, the same year that

Princeton was founded.

While Hodge was still enrolled at Princeton, a revival broke out his senior year

amongst the student body. Charles had plans to study medicine like his brother Hugh; however,

those plans would change after the events of 1815. While Hodge was noted as having lived a

very religious and pious life, Gutjahr states that the events that unfolded during the revival at

Princeton would shake the young Hodge to his core.4 As Hodge contemplated if he was truly

converted, he personally affirmed that he was genuine in his faith and made a public profession

as such and became one of the revival’s early converts.5 This event would change the course of

Hodge’s life and career focus to study the word of God and search the Scriptures.

Early Career

2
Gutjahr, 17
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., 52.
5
Ibid.

iv
 Hodge would sit under the tutelage of Archibald Alexander to study for the

Presbyterian ministry for the rest of his time at Princeton. After ordination, Hodge furthered his

education in Europe at different universities and encountered Schleiermacher’s and Hegel’s

lectures while in Berlin and Tübingen.6 Olson states that the experience convinced Hodge that

the new, liberal approach to Protestant theology was weak thus strengthening his own view of

Protestant orthodoxy.7 The discovery of Thomas Reid’s commonsense realism was influential in

shaping Hodge’s philosophy and thus the philosophy of Princeton where Hodge would later

serve as President.8 Olson states that Hodge’s system was an expression of classical Protestant

orthodoxy, which was presented in such a way that any significant disagreement was tantamount

to heresy and sometimes apostasy.9 Because Hodge had such strong views, he would later be

found in the middle of controversies that stemmed from the First Great Awakening and grew

during the Second Great Awakening.

While Olson seems to point to the “experience” of Hodge with German

theologians as having been one that steered him in a stronger direction towards his own heritage,

it would be incorrect to think these theologians did not have any influence on his theological

thought to which he agreed. Annette Aubert mentions that Hodge mainly studied Biblical

languages and exegesis while in Germany, and consequently it made a strong impression on his

theological thought and method.10 Aubert notes that James McAllister asserted that Hodge’s

6
Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform, (Downers
Grove: IVP, 1999), 558.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid, 559.
10
Annette G. Aubert, The German Roots of Nineteenth-Century American Theology, (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2013), 157-158.

v
studies in Germany equipped him in a way that he could not have otherwise realized concerning

biblical studies and theology.11 Aubert further states that if his time in Germany equipped him

well in biblical studies than it also equipped him with the ability to combat rationalism as well as

unorthodox theological views.12 Aubert’s main argument is that the German theological ideas

played a more influential role in shaping his theology than other historians give credit to.

Hodge’s most well-known work is his Systematic Theology. It is in this work that Aubert states,

“One finds plenty of verification in Hodge’s Systematic Theology, essays, and biblical commentaries that

he devoted time to keeping up with German ideas, by reading Schleiermacher, Carl Ullmann, Isaak

August Dorner, other mediating theologians, and German biblical scholars.”13 Aubert believes that most

modern scholars place Hodge in the realm of a systematic theologian rather than a biblical theologian.14

However, Aubert adds that Hodge’s contemporaries note that his Systematic Theology is the only work of

his time that considered his findings based upon sound Biblical exegesis.15 It is upon analyzing the

educational experiences which Hodge had that one can now view Hodge’s theology amidst controversy in

its proper context.

Theological Development Amidst Controversy

Despite the fact that Hodge was reared under the tutelage of leaders that sprang

from the Whitfieldian tradition of the Second Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, this paper

reveals that his educational experiences shaped his personal views in an eventual way that show

why and how he distanced himself from the theology of the revivalist preaching he was originally

accustomed to. Paul Gutjahr states,

11
Aubert, 158.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid., 158.
14
Ibid., 163.
15
Ibid.

vi
 Considering his family’s profound ties to Philadelphia’s Second Presbyterian
Church and its New Side roots, Hodge remained true to the New Side’s respect for
Calvinist doctrine but spent much of his life distancing himself from its association with
emotional revivalism. Hodge went so far as to denounce many of Whitefield’s activities
and attribute much of eighteenth-century revivalism to nervous disorders and mass
hysteria. Although his own life was marked by profound personal piety and an openness
to well-ordered revival activity, Hodge remained ever wary of revivalism that too greatly
stressed human agency and too highly prized religious enthusiasm over a more reasoned
assent to the truths of scripture.

Keeping Gutjahr’s comment in view, it is important to note the time which Hodge lived

within that would eventually have an effect on Hodge’s theology. While it may sound confusing

to understand how Hodge landed in the fundamentalists camp after having been converted under

the spirit of revival as well as growing up in a revivalist tradition, his educational experiences

shed more light on Hodge’s strong fundamentalist stance during the Second Great Awakening.

Mark Noll also notes that Hodge’s theology stemmed from a commitment to the authority of the

Bible with respect for the Reformed confessions of the European theologians of the seventeenth

century.16 Eventually, this left little room for Hodge to consider the emotional responses of

converts during the Second Great Awakening as having the same sort of the experience he had

while at Princeton. This is understandable considering Hodge’s own conversion experience. As

mentioned earlier, Hodge’s experience is not described as one that happened through human

emotion alone. One can see that even before his experience with Reid’s common sense realism,

Hodge had a mind that bent towards common sense rationale and thought, which enabled him to

reconcile his human emotions. This highlights how his admiration of Reid and his common sense

realism was so attractive to Hodge. It is also important to understand that the veracity of the

Bible was under attack from post-enlightenment liberals who compromised the message of the

16
Mark A. Noll, “Charles Hodge,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell, (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 561.

vii
gospel. While there are historians that view Hodge’s theology in a negative light concerning his

view of the Second Great Awakening conversions, it is of upmost historical and theological

significance to mention that it is his views concerning Biblical authority that most all

conservative evangelicals should view him in a positive light. The Second Great Awakening was

a very tumultuous time. Many historians and theologians find themselves confused when trying

to reconcile whose camp they may fall on the agreeable side of. While the Second Great

Awakening was controversial, Mark Knoll states that it was also, “the most influential revival of

Christianity in the history of the United States.”17 Rather than trying to reconcile what is

seemingly irreconcilable, it is important to note that despite the controversies that the church and

Hodge contended with, there were profound as well as positive implications that Hodge fought

for. Hodge’s views on Biblical authority are positions that all conservative evangelical historians

can positively admire. Woodbridge and James state that the turn of the twentieth century was

faced with many intellectual challenges and it was Charles Hodge and the legacy that he lead

during his time at Princeton that made Princeton such a staunch supporter to affirm the authority

of the Bible.18 While it is important to keep in mind that Hodge’s views fell on the historical side

of positions that some modern theologians may find irreconcilable, it is Hodge’s position on

Scripture’s infallibility that this paper argues and highlights as his greatest contribution. Because

Hodge was concerned with affirming the “absolute infallibility” of Scripture, it is understandable

how he fell on the side of the fundamentalist’s in the Old School vs. New School Controversy.

One cannot talk about this controversy without speaking of Hodge and his influence and

affirmations of Biblical inerrancy. Even historians such as Douglas Sweeney, who have been

17
Woodbridge and James, 790.
18
Ibid, 793.

viii
critical of Hodge concerning his defense of slavery, affirm the role Hodge played concerning the

defense of biblical inerrancy.19 Sweeney states, “Presbyterian pastor Charles Hodge (1797-

1878), boasted on more than one occasion, ‘I am not afraid to say that a new idea never

originated in this seminary.’”20 Woodbridge and James note that while this statement may sound

like an “intellectual faux pas” such a statement was made during theological controversy and was

intended to assert that Princeton stood on the side of its Reformation heritage and the Bible was

the theological centerpiece of its position.21 The controversy that Sweeney, Woodbridge and

James are referencing was not necessarily the Old School/New School controversy. The

controversy they are referencing was the Modernists-Fundamentalists controversy. While this

controversy may have had adherents that overlapped within the Old School/New School

Controversy, Woodbridge and James state that in a general sense, American fundamentalism was

a reaction that saw varying conservatives with real theological differences ban together with the

purpose of battling the perceived evils of modernism.22

Despite Hodges attempts to unite Presbyterians while in different theological

controversies, there was an eventual schism in 1837. The schism would leave a lasting

impression on Hodge. In the post-Civil War era Presbyterians began having discussions to

reunite. Many Presbyterians believed they had much more in common theologically to be able to

reunite. As the country was attempting to rebuild, restructure and recover from the effects of war,

19
Douglas A. Sweeney, The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement, (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2005), 108.
20
Ibid., 159.
21
John D. Woodbridge and Frank A. James, III. Church History: Pre-Reformation to the Present Day,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 793.
22
Ibid., 796.

ix
the Presbyterians were attempting the same recovery. However, for Hodge this was difficult to

reconsider. Paul Gutjahr states,

Because Hodge saw himself as defending this most central circle, he dedicated himself to
showing the folly of any premature move to Presbyterian reunification. He once again put
pen to paper and wrote what would become the primary “Protest” against the reunion,
declaring that a time for reunion might well come but as long as there was no clear
agreement on key points of theological difference, that time had not yet arrived.25 Few
seemed interested in Hodge’s article with its long historical explanations of the 1837
schism and dire predictions of future theological tension. Only a handful of like-minded
conservatives joined Hodge in his protest. His voice, which for years had been a signal
trumpet for the Old School, fell on deaf ears as hundreds of New and Old School
Presbyterians embraced the idea of denominational reunion.23
Perhaps Gutjahr highlights a sentiment in Hodge that was felt by many Southerners in the

post-Civil War era. Gutjhar adds, that history passed Hodge by because he failed to appreciate

the shared political commitment the Old lights and New Lights who were pro-Union, which

played a significant role in reuniting the denomination.24 In light of this, Gutjahr adds that while

Hodge was only viewing the controversy in terms of theology, his failure to consider the political

and cultural implications in the post-Civil War era caused him to be on the fringe minority when

his denomination reunited in 1869.25 Such a trend is still apparent in the modern era concerning

denominations who take a strong fundamentalist stance. But while Hodge is known as a

fundamentalist, it is important to note that Hodge was not anti-Ecumenical. Gutjahr mentions his

role in being a goodwill ambassador at a major Episcopalian event where he addressed the

assembly by stating, “How members of the different denominations could work side-by-side in the

23
Gutjahr, 342.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid., 342-343.

x
cause of Christ.”26 Thus, Hodges fundamentalist stance for separation was from within his own

denomination for unification and not in the ecumenical and evangelical advance of the gospel.

Conclusion
To conclude and summarize the argument made by this paper, Charles Hodge’s

theology can be viewed as one that did evolve and develop into a strong fundamentalist stance.

After a thorough analysis, it is much easier to understand how and why Hodge’s theology

developed in the way it did. Hodge had many positive influences being reared in the Whitfieldian

tradition of revival. While he was a fundamentalist, it would be wrong to place him in the camp

of an anti-revivalist as some historians seem to do. Hodge’s own conversion during the revival at

Princeton should shed greater light on this issue as well as his upbringing in the Second

Presbyterian Church. Hodges early career and education also played a fundamental role in

shaping Hodge’s thought. Hodge’s time and educational experiences in Europe and specifically

in German definitely played pivotal roles. Hodge is noted as always wanting to stay close to the

developments and ideas of German thought throughout his lifetime. Aubert notes how much

German ideas played in shaping his theology and bear the marks in his Systematic Theology that

is known as his greatest and most exhaustive work.

Hodge is also noted as living a very pious and religious life, even up to the point before

his conversion. While his conversion may differ from the types of conversions others had during

the Second Great Awakening, this is likely because he was reared and surrounded by a faithful

family. Modern observers should take note that such conversions of individuals who grow up in

a faith tradition are likely to have a similar type of conversion experience that would look

26
Gutjahr, 341.

xi
different from the types of conversions that take place among individuals not reared in any sort

of faith tradition. This is where Hodge possibly erred in judging the conversions taking place

during the Second Great Awakening. Such judgements are common place in the church today

and modern evangelical observers should pay attention. Modern evangelicals can learn much

from viewing Hodge’s theology and his fundamentalist stance within the context of the time in

which he lived. While it is difficult to reconcile how such a great theological mind can argue for

the defense of slavery, Hodge is not alone. But he is not exempt from the judgement of being

wrong on this issue. On the other hand, to emphasize this over his positive contributions to the

Evangelical cause would be an error. That is why this paper argued and emphasized that Hodge’s

defense for Biblical inerrancy was his greatest contribution, despite the fact that

he used it to defend slavery. It would be an error to gloss over this fact or be dismissive

of it. There were many other theologians who voiced a strong position against slavery. Fellow

Princetonian, Albert Barnes was such a voice. It is unfortunate that Hodge failed to recognize the

cultural significance that unification amongst those in his own denomination would eventually

play. Many modern fundamentalist who revere Hodge fail to see how much he did fight for

unification before the Civil War and emphasize his separation while ignoring his ecumenical

efforts.

In closing and as noted earlier, the development of Charles Hodge’s theology should be

judged in the context of the time he lived and recognized for his positive contributions to the

greater Evangelical cause. All conservative Evangelicals should admire Hodge for his positive

contributions and brilliant intellectual mind.

xii
 Bibliography
Aubert, Annette G. The German Roots of Nineteenth-Century American Theology. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2013.
Elwell, Walter. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Gutjahr, Paul C. Charles Hodge: Guardian of American Orthodoxy. Oxford University Press,
2011.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1940.
Noll, Mark A. America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2002.
Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform.
Downers Grove: IVP, 1999.
Sweeney, Douglas A. The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2005.
Woodbridge, John D. and Frank A. James, III. Church History: Pre-Reformation to the Present
Day. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013.

xiii