(Receive our blog posts in your email by clicking here. If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)
Twenty years ago, a handy little volume was published by Banner of Truth titled Princeton Versus The New Divinity. It is a collection of a handful of articles written by 19th century Princeton divines in response to the movement known by various names, including New England Theology, Edwardsean, and The New Divinity, among other nomenclatures. In general, it was a movement that heavily emphasized evangelism and revival at the expense of Biblical theology on such matters as sin, total depravity, and grace.
Princeton divines were greatly concerned that this new movement needed to be countered by sound theology. A number of articles were written in The Biblical Repertory and Theological Review, The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review and in other titles to respond to the movement by way of direct discussion and historical overview. Today we are thankful for the digitizing labors of those at the Library of the Princeton Theological Seminary who have made these articles, and others, so much more accessible.
As mentioned in the Banner of Truth volume, David Calhoun’s outline of the issues and authors involved, which appears in Princeton Seminary, Vol. 1, is highly recommended.
There were seven chapters/articles included in the 2001 Banner of Truth volume:
Charles Hodge, Review of Cox’s Sermon on Regeneration, and the Manner of Its Occurrence (1830) — titled “Regeneration” in the BoT volume;
Archibald Alexander, The Early History of Pelagianism (1830);
Archibald Alexander, The Doctrine of Original Sin as Held by the Church, Both Before and After the Reformation (1830) — titled “Original Sin” in the BoT volume;
Archibald Alexander, An Inquiry Into that Inability Under Which the Sinner Labours, and Whether it Furnishes Any Excuse for His Neglect of Duty (1831) — titled “The Inability of Sinners” in the BoT volume;
Charles Hodge, The New Divinity Tried (1832);
Albert Baldwin Dod, Finney’s Sermons (1835) and Finney’s Lectures (1835) — combined and titled “On Revivals of Religion” in the BoT volume — “William G. McLoughlin comments that Dod’s ‘review of the Lectures on Revivals can and should be properly considered the official and definitive counterattack upon the theological revolution that [Charles] Finney led,” David Calhoun, Princeton Seminary, Vol. 1, p. 467;
John Woodbridge, Review of The Scriptural Doctrine of Sanctification Stated and Defended Against the Error of Perfectionism (1842) — titled “Sanctification” in the BoT volume; and
Thomas Cleland, Bodily Affections Produced by Religious Excitement (1834) — an 1846 reprint was titled “Bodily Effects of Religious Excitement” and included the BoT volume.
All of these articles are available to read online at the links above. In addition, some others on this overall topic are also available to read and recommended for further study. Also, take note of our earlier post relating to the 1837-1838 split of the Presbyterian Church on the Old School-New School Explained.
Archibald Alexander, January 25, 1802 Letter to Nathan Strong (1802);
Lyman Hotchkiss Atwater, Dr. Woodbridge on Revivals: Influence of the New Divinity on Religion (1842);
Lyman Hotchkiss Atwater, Old Orthodoxy, New Divinity and Unitarianism (1857);
Lyman Hotchkiss Atwater, Jonathan Edwards and the Successive Forms of The New Divinity (1858);
Lyman Hotchkiss Atwater, Revivals of the Century (1876);
George Addison Baxter, January 1, 1802 Letter on the Kentucky Revival (1802);
Charles Hodge, Finney’s Lectures on Theology (1847);
William Buell Sprague, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (1832);
David Alexander Wallace, The Theology of New England (1856); and
B.B. Warfield, Edwards and the New England Theology (1912).
There is even more to read at Log College Press on this topic. But this may serve for starters. If you have an interest in the theological innovations that disrupted in the Presbyterian Church in the early 19th century, and how Princeton divines responded, dive in to these materials prayerfully, and with a Bible at hand, to better understand what was at issue, and how God’s Word and the history of the church sheds light on these matters. The editor of the Banner of Truth volume had to say about the importance of the subject:
Why these articles should be reprinted at a date so far removed from the controversy which occasioned them warrants introductory comment. Some controversies represent no more than a passing disturbance in the church. It was not to be so with the New Divinity. Both contending parties in the controversy saw this clearly. Those who introduced the new ideas were insistent that they would have revolutionary and long-term benefits for the advance of the gospel. Especially would this be so, they claimed, with respect to effective evangelism and the promotion of revival. The Princeton men, and those who supported them, were equally convinced that, should the new teaching succeed, it would mean a change of direction exceedingly adverse to the spiritual interests of later generations. Where the ‘New School’ were certain of the practical benefits resulting from the changes for which they were working, the ‘Old’ saw disaster.
