Charles Hodge: Pride of Princeton by W. Andrew Hoffecker

Charles Hodge: Pride of Princeton,

by W. Andrew Hoffecker, P&R, 460pp, 2011

I'm sure that as a church history boffin, Andrew Hoffecker knows his stuff. But I think he's written the wrong biography. Or at lest P&R has made a colossal publishing error and put the incorrect cover on the Professor's book. Why do I say that? Because the 'Charles Hodge' who emerges from these pages sounds suspiciously like a certain church historian who labours at the step-child of Old Princeton, Westminster Theological Seminary.

Hoffecker's 'Hodge' was a stickler for Presbyterian confessionalism and was suspicious of pan-Evangelical alliances. He was a keen controversialist, whose contributions to the widely read theological journal, Princeton Review served more or less the same purpose as Reformation 21's Online Magazine today.  Alright, 'Hodge' was a systematic theologian and his contemporary alter ego is a historian, but still, there are enough parallels to give rise to an intriguing question. Has Hoffecker in fact given us the biography of Carl Trueman in the guise of an historical novel?  

Admittedly, no other reviewer has noticed this. Not even Carl Trueman, who lines up with various other rent-a-blurb worthies at the front of the book. But it's a theory, and who's to say I'm wrong?  If, on the other hand I'm quite mistaken, it means that the Old Princeton systematician has a lot to say to the contemporary Evangelical scene and we would do well to listen to give him a hearing. 

But enough of this nonsense and on to a proper review. Hoffecker's key to understanding Hodge (I dispense with the quote marks and concede that this is a genuine biography after all) is that he was shaped by the New Side piety that flowed from the Great Awakening and Old School Presbyterian orthodoxy, with its dogged allegiance to the Westminster Standards. Hodge's approach to theology, involving the systematisation of the fruits of inductive Bible study along scientific lines has come in for a fair bit of criticism of late, perhaps justly so in some respects. But the Hodge who comes through in this biography was no clinical systematiser. He was a man of deep piety with a passionate concern to communicate and conserve Scriptural truth as understood by the historic Reformed faith. 

Hodge famously boasted that Princeton Seminary had invented no new doctrines, but that did not mean he was unaware of what was going on the the rapidly changing world of 19th century theology. His studies in Germany, heartland of theological liberalism, gave him first-hand experience of the latest trends in scholarship and their disastrous consequences as far as genuine Christianity was concerned. Hodge not only engaged in controversy with out-and-out Liberals. He also entered the fray against New School Presbyterians, who, with their openness to pan-Evangelical alliances were seen by Hodge as a threat to the theological integrity of his denomination. He also took an interest in the argument over Darwinism, rejecting the theory of evolution due to its unscientific character and worrying theological implications. While he acknowledged that all facts are God's facts, he also understood that human explanations of factual evidence may be deeply flawed. 

Yet Hodge was no pugilist who delighted in polemics for their own sake. He usually opted to follow a middle course between extremes on both sides in the many ecclesiastical spats that raged in 19th century American Presbyterianism. On the vexed matter of slavery that was to tear apart both church and state, Hodge was in favour of the gradual elimination of slavery but against salve-holding church members being subject to excommunication. It's a pity that he didn't take a clearer line on this issue, but his moderate stance was typical of the man. 

Hodge's position as Professor of Didactic Theology and editor of the Princeton Review, made him a figure of huge influence in his time. The celebration of his fifty years service at Princeton in 1872 was a massive event, attended by academic and ecclesiastical luminaries and a large cohort of former students. His Systematic Theology is regarded as an important, if flawed contribution to Reformed systematics. The flame of orthodoxy passed from the hands of Charles to his son, A. A. Hodge and then in turn to to B. B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen. By Machen's time Princeton had been infiltrated by Liberalism, which led to him leaving Hodge's old seminary to found the Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929. 

Hodge stands as a timely witness to the unique value of the of the historic Reformed faith. In our day as his, lowest common denominator Evangelicalism seeks to swallow up all in its wake. Hodge was catholic spirited enough to engage with the wider Evangelical scene, but in the main his activities were devoted to a Church that held to an elaborate confession of Reformed doctrine. I'm a Reformed Baptist, not a Presbyterian. Hodge's almost obsessive fretting over the decreasing incidence of infant baptism in his denomination garnered little sympathy from me. Would that the practice had died out altogether. However, I admire Hodge's firm insistence that the Church, not any parachurch organisation is the focal point of God's activity in the world. The importance of safeguarding the doctrine and life of the Church cannot therefore be overestimated. Banging this drum Charles Hodge does sound suspiciously like Carl Trueman, or is it the other way round? I shall leave you to work that one out for yourselves .   

Charles Hodge on the Spirit working apart from the truth

On Monday I gave an address on Word and Spirit in Preaching to the Evangelical Ministers' Fraternal, Bradley Stoke. I quoted Charles Hodge in defense of my thesis that the power of Holy Spirit does not always accompany the Word in the same invariable way,

"In short, the whole Bible, and especially the evangelical history and the epistles of the New Testament, represents the Holy Spirit not as a power imprisoned in the truth, but as a personal, voluntary agent acting with the truth or without it, as He pleases. As such He has ever been regarded by the Church, and has ever exhibited himself in his dealings with the children of God." (Systematic Theology Vol. III, p. 484).

In the discussion time after the paper someone questioned Hodge's assertion that the Holy Spirit acts "with the truth or without it, as He pleases." The questioner argued that while the Spirit is sovereign in the way he operates, he always works with the truth and never without it. Stupidly perhaps I hadn't given sufficient thought to this aspect of Hodge's teaching. I waffled a bit saying, "It depends what is meant by 'truth'." As some aspects of the Spirit's work may occur apart from specific biblical revelation. But I couldn't come up with anything more convincing to say and so I conceded the point. It seemed that Hodge was mistaken. But was he?

An article by Stuart Olyott on Why Luther Got It Wrong - and Why We Need To Know in December's Banner Magazine got me going on this one again. Criticizing the idea that the Word innately contains the converting power of the Spirit, Olyott wrote, "In fact if he [the Spirit] wishes, he can even work without the Word. He can!" Reflecting further, I think that the old Princeton theologian was thinking along the right lines. The Spirit does not normally work apart from the truth of biblical revelation in the salvation of sinners. But his action in the world is not limited to the presence of the Word of God whether written or preached. He may act apart from the truth of of special revelation in speaking to the conscience of a sinner in order to convict of sin. People who have never heard of the Bible's message of salvation in Christ have sometimes been given strange visions that help prepare them to receive the gospel. The Spirit has given us the written Word of God, but he may work apart from the Bible as he pleases. Having said that, salvation is not usually possible apart from the sinner believing Holy Scripture's witness to Christ, Romans 10:9-14, 2 Timothy 3:15. But perhaps there are some instances where the Spirit may work apart from the truth of the gospel even in the salvation of sinners. The Westminster Confession of Faith makes allowance for this,

X:III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

A couple of important truths need to be safeguarded here. 1) Only special revelation is salvific. No one will be saved merely by the light of general revelation - Romans 1:18-25. What the WCF seems to have in mind here is not the unevangelised, but those who lack the capacity to believe and be saved, such as infants and those with severe mental disabilities. 2) The Spirit is sovereign and may act savingly apart from the word. For the reasons just given some human beings are incapable of being 'outwardly called by the ministry of the Word'. In that instance the Holy Spirit, "who works when, and where, and how He pleases", is able to regenerate the sinner apart from the truth. So, in the end Hodge was right. While the Spirit usually works with the Word, he may act "with the truth or without it, as He pleases." Note the way Hodge echoes the language of the WCF on this point.

Why is this important? Because we need to maintain the free and sovereign agency of the Holy Spirit as a divine Person. "The wind blows where it wishes" (John 3:8). Two dangers need to be avoided. One is a Lutheran understanding of the relationship between Word and Spirit that virtually imprisons the Holy Spirit in the Word. The other is the Barthian view that so disconnects Holy Scripture from the Spirit that the Bible only becomes the Word of God in an event of divine self-disclosure. We need to confess that all Scripture is the product of God's creative breath (2 Timothy 3:16 ESV). Our supreme authority is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. Whenever the Bible is read or its message preached, the Spirit of Christ speaks. But he does not always work with the Word in the same uniform way. That is what drives us to pray, "Come great Spirit, come!" Apart from his working with the Word nothing can be accomplished, 1 Thessalonians 1:5.

Bavinck on God's Word in Servant Form

I've been reading the relevant chapters of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1 in preparation for paper on inerrancy. (You can see an earlier version of it here). It is sometimes suggested that the Dutch theologian's emphasis on the servant form on biblical revelation meant that he had problems with inerrancy. Judge for yourself whether this is the case:

"The incarnation of Christ demands that we trace it down into the depths of its humiliation, in all its weakness and contempt. The recording of the word, of revelation, invites us to recognise that dimension of weakness and lowliness, the servant form, also in Scripture. But just as Christ's human nature, however weak and lowly, remained free from sin, so also Scripture is is 'conceived without defect or stain'; totally human in all its parts but also totally divine in all its parts." (Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1, Baker Academic, 2003, p. 435).

Unlike Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Bavinck did not reflect at length on the integrity and purity of Scripture. He regarded such matters as the domain of biblical scholars rather than dogmaticians. His treatment of the attributes of Scripture is limited to the authority, necessity, sufficiency and perspicuity of the Bible. The main opponent for Princeton theologians was sceptical liberalism, which is why they concentrated their firepower on inerrancy. In discussing the attributes of Scripture, Bavinck has Roman Catholicism in his sights, hence the difference of emphasis.

Charles Hodge on Word and Spirit

I'm presently working on a paper on Word and Spirit in Preaching. I've been asked to address this subject at a minister's fraternal in the new year. One of my aims will be to show that we need to seek the Spirit's empowering presence in the proclamation of the gospel. I'll be drawing on Vanhoozer's emphasis on the Spirit's role in giving perlocutionary effect to the Word. In my research, I also looked up what Charles Hodge had to say. His treatment of this theme was outstanding.

In his Systematic Theology, Hodge devotes attention to the Word of God as a means of grace. He considers the question, “To what is the Power of the Word to be attributed?” Hodge first discusses the “rationalist” view that the Word is effective because of its own inherent moral power. This is dismissed because,

"The minds of men since the fall are not in a condition to receive the transforming and saving power of the truths of the Bible and therefore it is necessary, in order to render the Word of God an effectual means of salvation, that it should be attended by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit." (ST Vol. III p. 473)

Then Hodge engages with the Lutheran account of the relationship between Word and Spirit. Lutheran theologians taught that the Spirit is indissolubly united to the Word. He gives the Word its divine power and sends it forth among men. The is no variation of the Spirit’s operation in this respect, just as there is no variation of the Spirit’s work in providentially upholding and guiding secondary causes in providence. But the theologian objects,

"This doctrine is inconsistent with the constant representations of the Scriptures, which set forth the Spirit as attending the Word and giving it effect, sometimes more and sometimes less; working with and by the truth as He sees fit. It is inconsistent with the command to pray for the Spirit. Men are not accustomed to pray that God would give fire the power to burn or ice to cool. If the Spirit were always in mystical, indissoluble union with the Word, giving it inherent divine power, there would be no propriety in praying for his influence as the Apostles did, and as the Church in all ages has ever done, and continues to do.

This theory cuts us off from all intercourse with the Spirit and all dependence upon Him as a personal voluntary agent. He never comes; He never goes; He does not act at one time more than at another. He has imbued the Word with divine power, and sent it forth into the world. There his agency ends." (ST Vol. III, p. 482).

Charles Hodge asks,

"What according to the Lutheran theory is meant by being full of the Holy Ghost? or, by the indwelling of the Spirit? or, by the testimony of the Spirit? or, by the demonstration of the Spirit? or, by the unction of the Holy One which teaches all things? or, by the outpouring of the Spirit? In short, the whole Bible, and especially the evangelical history and the epistles of the New Testament, represents the Holy Spirit not as a power imprisoned in the truth, but as a personal, voluntary agent acting with the truth or without it, as He pleases. As such He has ever been regarded by the Church, and has ever exhibited himself in his dealings with the children of God." (ST Vol. III, p. 484).

I wonder if it's the case that many evangelicals, dare I say it particularly evangelical Anglicans, hold to a Lutheran rather than Reformed view of the relationship between Word and Spirit?